Comments on Sherlock's FARMS Essay

Sherlock's essay begins with a thought experiment that underlies the rest of the essay.

Let us suppose that at some future date Voyager lands on a distant planet inhabited by beings with intelligence and knowledge much like our own.

When the Voyager craft lands on this faraway world, a team of scientists immediately begins to examine this unfamiliar object. Upon close inspection, what would be the most reasonable conclusion for our distant scientists to reach? Would it be that the random action of physical forces came together in a strange new way to create it, or would it be that it was designed and constructed by an intelligent agent or agents?

ID proponents are fond of these type of thought exercises; the problem is that they do not mirror the situation in biology. Our judgment on such an issue would depend upon our prior knowledge and experience, and here the object is "unfamiliar." Similarly, SETI researchers look for signals that are different from what they usually find (like pure tones amid all the noise) and forensic investigators and archaeologists use what is known about the natural world and human activities to inform their studies.

Contrast that with life on this planet, which has been in existence for more than 3,500,000,000 years with vast numbers of life-forms having come and gone. We come along at the tail end and decide that certain complexities of life were designed by outside intelligence--that what we find in nature could not have come from nature. Are we really in a position to make such a scientific judgment, particularly when in some cases we have some plausible answers? When he writes that "The claim of design is not made on the basis of ignorance but, like our distant scientists, on the basis of our knowledge of nature and of action of natural causes," it is hard for me not to see it as begging the question.

One of Sherlock's fundamental assumptions is that "God acts in nature and we can recognize it." Perhaps those who have 'eyes to see' will, but the scientific enterprise is about open knowledge and testing. If God's ways are open to such things then how exciting such research would be! Unfortunately it appears that they are not, hence statements from various commentators, including Church leaders, that gospel truths are to be known by the Holy Ghost rather than scientific evidence.

This leads me to Sherlock's claim that ID is not a science-stopper. Regarding the imaginary planet on which Voyager crashes, he writes:

If those scientists ignore design as a relevant hypothesis and just assume randomness—for example, "this is just another meteor"—they will ignore a vast and relevant line of investigation. How was it designed? Who designed it? What was it designed for?

Other than what is in the scriptures, these are exactly the kinds of questions that cannot be answered if the designer is God. Trying to understand why God would do something is a certain recipe for Sherlock's dreaded 'just-so' stories.

Sherlock thinks that scientists should use the model of "faithful history" in their studies. An important difference, of course, is that historians deal with subjects who make claims (sometimes specific) about their inspiration. He asks,

If one accepts God as part of the reality of the cosmos, why should one ignore that in studying order in nature?

I think one answer that many scientists would give is, "because it isn't helpful." Indeed, young-earth creationists take God's involvement in the cosmos very seriously.

Toward the end Sherlock gets into things that have more to do with legal issues. The connection between ID and creationism was quite relevant in the Dover trial. The first ID textbook was originally about 'creation' rather than 'intelligent design,' and some of the central ID arguments were first formulated by creationists. Furthermore it was shown that the Discovery Institute's pushing of ID around the country was part of a calculated cultural/religious revolution, while mainstream scientists disavowed ID. ID was being used as a disguise for religion--a Constitutional issue.

I have some other misgivings about the essay. For example I am suspicious of the invocation of Stephen J. Gould and punctuated equilibrium--a controversial and much misunderstood concept. Also, the reference to the list of scientists who support ID is a farce. And this passage is essentially meaningless as written (though he apparently is getting at this):

Let us consider a relatively uncomplicated protein made up of a chain of amino acids with what biologists call "left and right hands." The probability that this protein could have come into existence by the random combination of amino acids is 1 chance in 10^–125. This is a number so small that it is effectively zero.

I'm running out of steam, but let me recommend TalkOrigins (especially An Index to Creationist Claims) and the review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design at The Pandas Thumb (See the chapter 10 review for irreducible complexity and the blood clotting cascade) as helpful resources. For those interested, transcripts and the decision from the Dover trial are available here. I should also point out that Thomas Schneider, an actual scientist that uses information theory in molecular biology, has no love for William Dembski (scroll toward bottom).

[Note added: For treatment of several points raised in the essay, see "The Evolution of Biological Complexity."]