Answering Michael

By Brian D. Wilson

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently interviewed Michael J. Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehi University. His book The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism, has stirred up considerable controversy. Behe is one of a growing number of proponents of a new scientific theory called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design (ID) states that an intelligent designer, rather than random mutation, is the best explanation for the universe’s existence when one observes the complex structures it possesses. Behe argues that intelligent agents leave behind evidence of design which can be distinguished from naturally occurring phenomena.

For example, if I came across a rock in the desert I would not think a human being made it. If however I came across a Rolex watch, it would be reasonable to suppose that an intelligent mind made it, and implausible to assume that time, wind, sand, and geological forces could have made it. Behe calls this design factor Irreducible Complexity which he describes in his 1996 book, Darwins’ Black Box as “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Therefore all the parts are mutually interdependent, and as a result it would be impossible for that object to have come about by gradual incremental changes over time as evolution suggests.

Dr. Behe’s comments were not very compelling, however, to a caller named Michael who insisted that Intelligent Design was not science because it failed to meet the criterion of verification. However, after listening to Michaels exchange with Behe it became clear that he was not really speaking about the idea of verification. Instead he was espousing something called Verificationism, a philosophy of science which denies the existence of things that cannot be verified and says, as famously argued by atheist Antony Flew, that unverifiable statements are equivalent to meaningless statements.

Michael’s objection is false for two reasons. First, ID can be tested. Behe explained on the air that by using the standard tools of observation you can determine if something is a product of nature or is irreducibly complex. There are only two ways a thing can be caused, by an intelligent agent, or by nature. If an object is irreducibly complex it certainly could not have been caused by nature. The only option left is creation by an intelligent mind. Therefore the position is perfectly verifiable, that is unless someone can come up with a category other than being caused by an intelligent mind, or caused by the laws of physics acting on matter.

Secondly, the Verificationism espoused by Michael violates the very logical integrity upon which science depends. There is a difference between verification and Verificationism. Verification is a tool of science. It is what we do when we use our five senses. I hypothesize, “Perhaps there is an elephant in this room.” I use my sight to verify that statement and conclude that there is an elephant in the room.

Verificationism goes much further stating that if you cannot verify something it doesn’t exist. But does that really make sense? If an astronomer hypothesizes that there is a planet somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy I understand that until verification is made, there may or may not be a planet in that vicinity. But it makes no sense to say, “Because you have no evidence for the planet in Andromeda it must not exist.” Clearly this view misrepresents empirical method.

Scientists gave up Verificationism long ago because if accepted the theory would potentially destroy science. Take the Copernican Principal which states that Earth occupies no special place in the universe, or even the idea that the laws of physics we see in our solar system apply everywhere in the Cosmos. Many scientists believe the first idea, and nearly all believe the second. Yet no reputable scientist believes he can verify either of these principals even though they are essential to Astro-Physics.

Antony Flew’s argument fairs no better. Flew contends that when a Christian says, “God exists,” such a statement isn’t merely untrue, it’s meaningless, like the gibberish statement “I floog roft tee rabbal miccan sibyl yest!”

When Flew says God cannot be verified, he means by the five senses. Flew believes that only matter exists, and that the only type of information that exists is sensory information.

Yet I know of no scientist who has proven that only material things exist. I assure you my thought of the color red will be found no where inside my cortex though you search vainly for it. Then does my thought of red not exist? How much does my thought of red weigh? My aunt went to the optometrist not long ago. She complained that the eye chart appeared fuzzy. Though if you cut open my aunt’s brain and eye balls you will find no fuzziness anywhere either.

Since the existence of immaterial things such as thoughts, numbers, or God cannot be ruled out it is even stranger that verificationists attempt to discredit their existence by using the five senses. That is like the man who says there is an invisible rabbit in his room. Then A verificationist shows up one day and tells him, “No invisible rabbit lives in your room! I know because I looked everywhere for him.” None of this, mind you, proves God exists. What it does illustrate is that you do not disprove God’s existence by saying he cannot be sensed.

More importantly even if God did not exist no one in their right mind could argue that the idea “God exists” was meaningless. In fact the atheist’s own objection to the statement proves it has meaning. How is it possible for someone to object to a statement that made no sense? "Rib Snab Gart babble to you sir!!" "How dare you" the other replies "That's not true, I do not believe it for a minute."

Consider Flew’s argument another way. Suppose I said, “Julius Caesar spat in a puddle in Gaul on the 5th of May 55 B.C. at 11 A.M.” No one could verify that statement. However according to Mr. Flew because this statement cannot be verified it is meaningless. Clearly though the statement has meaning.

In conclusion if our caller Michael wants to disqualify Intelligent Design he is going to have to come up with a better argument. In the on-going debate between Materialists and Intelligent Design advocates it is important to keep the doors of communication open. While I appreciate Michael’s effort in the discussion, he seems only to have successfully expressed his own confusion over not only Empiricism and verification, but the idea of I.D itself.