4 4 5S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n sparade of examples really shows is that there are some interesting problems
for molecularly minded evolutionists to work on, problems they might hope
to solve in the light of increased understanding from comparative studies of
the genetics and development of a wide variety of organisms....
So far I have focused on the negative doctrine of intelligent design, the
identification of unsolved evolutionary problems. We now have to consider
the positive thesis, the claim that the phenomena to which Darwin’s detrac-
tors point are produced by a process that deserves the label “intelligent.”
Two issues need to be considered. First, on what grounds should we apply
the label? Second, what help can intelligent design provide in understand-
ing the phenomena in question?...
Making any judgment about whether a mechanism is intelligent or not
appears rather difficult until we have been told considerably more about the
way in which that mechanism operates. Officially, of course, we aren’t sup-
posed to personify this mechanism, and it’s hard to understand just what
the attribution of Intelligence even means if we resist the personification. If
something counts as intelligent, wouldn’t it have psychological states and
engage in psychological processes—and wouldn’t anything like that be very
like a person? Intelligent design-ers do not address such questions....
It’s simply a fallacy to suppose that because a particular structure or
mechanism appears complex, then the causal agent that brought it about
must be appropriately characterized as having “foreseen” or “planned” or
“designed” the outcome. Even if intelligent design-ers were right in sup-
posing that the phenomena they indicate couldn’t have evolved by natural
selection, only a more explicit identification of the causal mechanism that
was at work could justify the conclusion that that mechanism is intelligent.
So, turning to the second question posed above, what help can intelligent
design provide when we try to understand the difficulties it takes to beset
Darwinism? How does it deal with the bacterial flagellum, for example?
If we take Behe at his word when he declares that he finds “the idea of
common descent” to be “fairly convincing,” and that he has “no particu-
lar reason to doubt it,”* then we should suppose that bacteria with flagella
emerged from ancestors who lacked flagella. In line with the simple additive
story he uses to make a history of natural selection appear implausible, he
must suppose that the ancestors were missing a number of crucial proteins
that the lucky descendants acquired, proteins that, once present, fit them-
selves together in the flagellum. If the intelligent design perspective is to
help settle the unsolved problems of evolution, it would be good to have an
alternative account that tells us how Intelligence facilitated the transition.
Unfortunately, the rest is silence. Neither in Behe’s writings, nor in those
of any other intelligent design-er, is there the slightest indication of how
Intelligence performs the magic that poor, limited, natural selection cannot.* Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 7.97364_ch20_ptg01_423-448.indd 445 15/11/13 12:09 3M
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.