Despite many denials, Intelligent Design is a new variant of an old creationist argument called the teleological argument. In its most simplified Christian version, it is structured as follows: 1) Design implies a Designer; 2) This Designer is the Christian God.

William Dembski, author of “Intelligent Design” (1999), makes ambivalent claims about the role of religious commitment in ID. On the one hand, Dembski tells us (p. 252): “Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments.” But, on p. 209, he says: “So, too, Christology tells us that the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.”

“The Privileged Planet,” co-authored by ISU professor Guillermo Gonzalez, argues that our planet seems to be uniquely designed and positioned for life and scientific measurability/discovery. Some may claim that TPP represents a groundbreaking scientific effort. Yet, its claim is a variant of a claim expressed by Augustus Hopkins Strong in his “Systematic Theology” (1907, p. 75): “Order and useful collocation pervading a system respectively imply intelligence and purpose as the cause of that order and collocation.”

Given the millions of unique features of our planet, the book does not explain why it believes that habitability and measurability are the features that were uniquely designed. After all, HIV and congenital deformities are also unique features of our planet.

The best explanation that TPP can muster for its selection is on p. 303: “When considering universes, everyone recognizes, unless they’re trying to avoid a conclusion they find distasteful, that a habitable universe containing intelligent observers has an intrinsic value that an uninhabitable one lacks.”

But how does TPP define “intrinsic value?” it says (p. 300): “Such value is difficult to define, but we usually know it when we see it.” Thus, TPP ends up with a very self-serving and circular argument that may be paraphrased: “Feature X was designed because I consider X valuable.” TPP’s co-author, who is an astronomer, seems to believe that the measurability of the universe was designed for his convenience.

Since 99.99999 percent of our planet’s 4.5 billion-year history was not inhabited by human beings, one might just as easily postulate that the Designer meant for earth to be inhabited mostly by creatures that made no intelligent measurements. Another problem is the use of so-called Fine-Tuning arguments, which list a host of physical constants and values that must “be right” in order for life to exist on earth. For example, if the charge of the electron were different, life would not exist on Earth.

Once one considers all the things that must “be right” for life to exist, then some astronomical probability is calculated to argue that life on earth cannot be pure coincidence.

The main assumption is that the amount of physical constants and entities that “must be right” to produce any entity X is generally proportional to the amount of the Designer’s purpose for X.

Yet, this assumption can be reduced to absurdity. For example: Let P = the entire set of entities or physical values that must “be right” for human life to exist on earth. Mathematically, we can argue that more things must “be right” to produce computers. We need only P to make human beings, but we need P + 1 (i.e., human beings) to make computers. Given that mathematical fact, why do advocates of ID think human beings are the ultimate “purpose” of the Designer? And why can’t human beings be only an intermediary step in some conceivably longer causal sequence?

Indeed, whether we call the “Designer” the Christian God or not, the advocates of ID provide no method to verify that any feature they observe about our universe corresponds to the intentions of a “Designer.”

It is this arbitrary and unverifiable attribution of intention that renders ID and “The Privileged Planet” more of an exercise in theology than in science.

Hector Avalos

Associate Professor

Religious Studies