TeTheory of Intelligent Design

By:
Enézio de Almeida Filho

Based on the works of the theorists of Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael J.
Behe.

Introduction:
The debate about the origins and evolution of the universe and life has been a dialectic.
very controversial, especially after Darwin published the book Origin of
Species in 1859. Since then, the source of controversy has been the design. Would it be the
design appearance in organisms (as displayed in their functional complexity)
the result of purely natural forces acting without prediction or teleology? Or
Would it mean genuine prediction and teleology? That design would be empirically
detectable and accessible to scientific research? Four important positions have emerged
due to these issues: Darwinism, self-organization, theistic evolution, and design
intelligent.

The questions that insist on not being silenced:

Why Darwinism, despite being so inadequately supported as a scientific theory
continues to accumulate total support from the academic establishment?
What keeps Darwinism in circulation despite its many flaws
evident?
Why are the alternatives that introduce design excluded from the scientific debate?
Why must science explain only by relying on unguided natural processes?
Who determines the rules of science?
There is a code of 'scientifically correct' that, instead of helping us reach the truth,
does it actively prevent us from asking certain questions and reaching the truth?
What is correct - naturalistic evolution or intelligent design?

Objects, even if nothing is known about how they came into being, can display
characteristics - intentional design - that securely signal the action of a cause
intelligent? Currently, this is one of the forbidden questions to be asked in science,
especially in biology. The most accurate examples of this attitude are from two
important evolutionary scientists:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see has no design.
intentional, but evolved" (emphasis nonexistent) - Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (1988).
Biology is the study of complex things that give the impression of having a design.
"intentional" (nonexistent emphasis) - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (2001).

However, the most important question for any society to ask is precisely
that which is prohibited, many biologists and other scientists have volunteered to respond: the
Is design real or apparent?

What is the Theory of Intelligent Design?

The emergence of a modern scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID) and of a
community of academically qualified researchers promoting this theory
(Intelligent Design Movement - IDM) has been in the United States for over ten years,
brought the question of the origins of the universe and life back into the spotlight in the media
in the gym.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a science, a philosophy, and a movement for reform.
educational. As a science, it is an argument against the orthodox Darwinian claim that
what unconscious forces like variation, genetic inheritance, natural selection, and time
be able to explain the main characteristics (complexity and diversity) of
biological world. As philosophy, it is a critique of the dominant philosophy of science that
limit the explanation only to purely physical or material causes. As a program of
educational reform is a public movement to make Darwinism - its
evidence, philosophical assumptions, and rhetorical tactics - subject of a discussion
well-informed, broad, civilized, and lively public.

TDI is a modern scientific theory that tries to answer this scientific question.
forbidden: The objects, even if nothing is known about how they appeared,
Do they exhibit characteristics that safely indicate the action of an intelligent cause?
To see what is epistemically at stake, let us consider the statue of Christ.
Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro. The evidence of design in the statue, created on commission from
Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro by the French plastic artist Paul Landowski, is direct —
eyewitnesses saw the architects, engineers, and other workers lifting
this structure in reinforced concrete. But, what if there was no direct evidence of design
for the statue of Christ the Redeemer? If humans no longer existed and if
extraterrestrials visiting Earth discovered the statue of Christ the Redeemer like this
Where is it currently located? What would be their conclusion before the statue? By chance and
need? Or intelligent design?

In this case, what about this object would provide compelling circumstantial evidence of
that was due to the action of an intelligence and not the wind and erosion or accumulation
slow and gradual of construction materials? Objects with intentional design like the
Christ the Redeemer exhibits characteristic aspects that point to an intelligence.
Such aspects or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of ID,
known as design theorists, aim to study such signs formally, rigorously and
scientifically.

The fundamental assertion of DI is direct and very understandable, that is: there are systems
natural phenomena that cannot be adequately explained in terms of natural forces
non-directed and that exhibit characteristics that under any other circumstances we
we would attribute to intelligence. Therefore, DI can be defined as the science that studies
the signs of intelligence.

A method to detect design

Because a sign is not the thing signified, the DI does not assume to identify or focus on the
purposes of a designer (the thing signified), but in the artifacts that result from the
purposes of a designer (the sign). What a designer intends or proposes to do is
an interesting question, and someone might even be able to infer something about the
purposes of a designer based on objects with intentional design that a designer
However, the intentions of a designer and even their nature (if, by
For example, the designer is a conscious personal agent or an impersonal teleological process.
it is outside the scope of the DI. As a scientific research program, the DI investigates the
effects of intelligence and not intelligence itself. In fact, one of the most aspects
the vigorousness of TDI is that it distinguishes design from the purpose of design.

What makes the DI controversial is that it proposes to find signs of intelligence.

in nature and, specifically, in biological systems. According to the biologist
evolutionist Francisco Ayala, Darwin's greatest achievement was to demonstrate how the
the organized complexity of organisms could be obtained apart from an intelligence
that uses design. Therefore, ID directly challenges Darwinism and other approaches
naturalists regarding the origin and evolution of life.

In order for design to be a fertile scientific concept, scientists must be sure of

that they can confidently determine if something has intentional design. Johannes
Kepler, for example, thought that the craters on the Moon had been made intelligently.
by the inhabitants of the Moon. Today we know that the craters were formed by factors
purely material (such as meteor collisions). This fear of attributing design
falsely to something, just to later see it being discredited, has prevented the
design to enter the scientific circuit. But the proponents of ID argue that now
they formulated precise and rigorous methods to differentiate objects with design
intentional of the unintentional design. They claim that these methods empower them.
avoid Kepler's error and safely locate the design in biological systems.

As a theory of biological origin and development, the central claim of ID

only intelligent causes adequately explain the biological structures of
complex information and that these causes are empirically detectable. To affirm that
intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to affirm the existence of methods
well-defined that, based on the observable aspects of the world, can distinguish with
security intelligent causes of undirected natural causes.

Many special sciences have already developed such methods to make this distinction -
notably criminal investigation science, cryptography, archaeology, the
artificial intelligence (cf. the Turing test) and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence
(SETI - Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). The ability to eliminate chance and
need is essential for all these scientific methods. Whenever these methods
they detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they discover is information.
David Baltimore, American molecular biologist (Nobel Prize in 1975) stated: 'The
modern biology is an information science.” The properly formulated TDI is
a theory of information. Within this theory, information becomes an indicator
reliable for intelligent causation as well as an appropriate object for investigation
scientific.

The astronomer Carl Sagan wrote a book about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
called Contact, which later became a movie. The plot and the aliens were
fictitious, but Sagan based the detection methods of design on the astronomers of SETI
exactly in scientific practice. In real life, so far SETI researchers have not
they succeeded in convincingly detecting signs of intentional design in space
sideral, but if they find such a signal, as the astronomers did in the movie, they
they will also infer intentional design.

Why did the radio astronomers in the movie Contact come to an inference of design from the
radio signals that they monitored from space? SETI researchers listen to
millions of radio signals collected from outer space through computers
programmed to recognize predetermined patterns. These patterns serve as
sieve. The signs that do not fit into any of the patterns pass through the sieve and
are classified as random.

Year after year receiving random signals seemingly without meaning, the
researchers of the film Contact discovered a pattern of beats (1) and pauses (0)
that corresponded to the sequence of all prime numbers between 2 and 101. (The numbers
primes are divisible only by themselves and by one). That surprised and called the
attention of radio astronomers, and they immediately inferred an intelligent cause.
When a sequence starts with two beats (11) and then a pause (0), three
beats (111) and then a pause (0), and continues for all prime numbers up to the
number with one hundred and one beats, researchers need and should infer the presence
of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

Here is the reason for this inference: there is nothing in the laws of Physics that requires that the signals
of radio take one form or another. The sequence of prime numbers is therefore
contingent instead of necessary. Furthermore, the sequence of prime numbers is long and
therefore complex. If the sequence were extremely small and therefore would not have
complexity, it could easily have happened by chance. Finally, the sequence does not
it was merely complex but also exhibited a pattern or specification
regardless of being given (it was not just any old sequence of numbers,
more of a mathematically significant sequence - the prime numbers.

Intelligence leaves behind a trademark or signature - which within the

the DI community is now called specified complexity. An event displays
specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is
complex and therefore not readily repeated by chance; and if it is specified in the
the sense of displaying a given pattern independently. A merely event
unlikely is not enough to eliminate chance - when flipping a coin many times
in the air, someone will witness a highly complex or unlikely event. Even
Thus, there will be no reason to attribute it to anything other than chance.

The important thing about specifications is that they are given objectively and
should not be imposed arbitrarily on events after the fact. For example, if a
archer shooting arrows towards a wall and then painting the target on the fly
around them, the archer set a standard after the event. On the other hand, if the targets were
placed beforehand ("specified"), and then the archer hits them accurately,
It is legitimately concluded that this occurred by intentional design.

The combination of complexity and specification pointed convincingly to the

radio astronomers in the movie Contact for an extraterrestrial intelligence. The evidence was
purely coincidental - the radio astronomers knew nothing about the aliens
responsible for the signal or how they transmitted it. DI theorists claim that the
specified complexity provides compelling circumstantial evidence of intelligence.
Consequently, the specified complexity is an empirical marker of
reliable intelligence, just as fingerprints are markers
reliable empirical evidence of an individual's presence. Furthermore, the theorists of DI
they argue that purely material factors cannot adequately explain the
specified complexity.

The epistemic insufficiency of some aspects of Darwinism is considered even by

evolutionary scientists.

In the literature of DI, some references to 'design' are not related to design as
cause (detectable or not), but to design as an empirically detectable effect. It is
It's important that these two senses of design are carefully distinguished. The
The epistemic sense of design (detectable effect) is much more restricted than the
ontological sense (cause). Some genuine design may not leave a detectable trace.
A smart killer can forge an accidental or natural death, thus making
undetectable a malignant design. As an empirical-epistemic concept, the design must be
restricted to those cases where chance and [natural] law can be excluded with
security. However, the design may be operating incognito even when chance and the
laws [natural] cannot be excluded as explanations. One suggestion is that the design,
as an empirical effect, it can be identified with the manifestation of a certain type of
information, the specified complex information (ICE), which is the idea behind the filter
explanatory proposed by William Dembski [in The Design Inference (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998)]” . MENUGE, Angus. Agents Under Fire:
Materialism and the Rationality of Science, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., 2004, p. 17. [My emphasis].

A TDI meets the four criteria of the deductive-nomological model of explanation.

scientific explanation of phenomena: A) The explanation it offers can be made in the form of a
deductive argument; B) Contains at least one general law (law of small
probability), and this law is required for the derivation of the thing to be explained (in this case,
the nature of the cause of the event in question); C) It has empirical content because it depends
a lot from the observation of the event and relevant empirical facts to determine the
objective probability of its occurrence; D) The sentences constituting the explanation are
true (as far as we know), because in principle they take everyone into account
the relevant factors available before the event that is being attempted to explain.
GORDON, Bruce L., 'Is Intelligent Design Science? - The Scientific Status and Future'
of Design-Theoretic Explanations”, in Signs of Intelligence, p. 209.

Currently, there are more than 450 scholars (with Ph.D.), some professors in
universities such as Stanford, Princeton, Yale, University of Idaho, University of
Texas, University of California (Berkeley), University of San Francisco,
University of Georgia (Henry F. Schaeffer, five-time nominee for the award)
Nobel, the third most cited chemist in the world), University of Notre Dame, among
other renowned educational institutions.

This Author considers the book The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical
Library, Inc., 1984) by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen as the work
seminal of the MDI. Upon receiving in 1984 a signed copy by one of the authors,
Charles Thaxton never imagined the scientific revolution that this book would provoke years later.
later and would be involved in promoting TDI in Brazil. See Doubts About
Darwin, by Thomas Woodward, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003, about history
do DI.

Amateurs can also participate in the SETI project using their computers in
search for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. More information:http://www.seti.org.

The pattern containing the sequence of prime numbers from 2 to 101 presented in the film
Contact:

110111011111011111110111111111110111111111111101111111111111111101111111111
1111111110111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111110111111111111
1111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Detecting design in biology:
1. The argument of specified complexity (William Dembski): *To determine if
biological organisms exhibit specified complexity, the ID theorists
we focus on identifiable systems (e.g.: individual enzymes, metabolic pathways and
molecular machines). These systems are not only specified by their
independent functional requirements, but also exhibit a high degree of
complexity.

The specified complexity, as Dembski develops in his work, incorporates

five important elements:
A) - A probabilistic version of complexity applicable to events: probability
can be seen as a form of complexity. They vary inversely: the more
the greater the complexity, the lower the probability will be. The term complexity in
specified complexity refers to improbability.
B) - Conditionally independent patterns: the patterns that in the presence of
complexity (or improbability) implying an act of intelligence must be
independent of the event whose design is in question. The way to characterize this
independence of standards is through the probabilistic notion of independence
conditional. The term specified in specified complexity refers to such
conditionally independent patterns - are the specifications.
C) - Probabilistic resources: these are the number of opportunities for an event to occur
It will be specified. An apparently unlikely event can become quite likely.
as soon as sufficient probabilistic resources are factored. On the other hand, such an event
it can remain unlikely even after all available probabilistic resources
have been factored. The probabilistic resources are replicators (the number of
opportunities for an event to occur) and specifiers (the number of opportunities
to specify an event). For a probability event to be reasonably
attributed to chance, the number cannot be too small.
D) - A specifying version of complexity applied to standards. Due to being
standards, the specifications exhibit varying degrees of complexity. A degree of
complexity specification determines how many specifying resources must be
factored when calculating the level of improbability necessary to exclude chance.
The more complex the pattern, the more specifying resources must be factored.
Mathematicians call the generalization of this Kolmogorov complexity. The low
specifying complexity is important in design detection because it ensures that
an event whose design is in question was not simply described after the fact and
then arranged as if it could be described as having occurred before the fact.
E) - A universal limit number of probability. Probabilistic resources come in
limited quantities in the observable universe. Scientists estimate that there are around
of 1080 elementary particles. The properties of matter are such that the transitions
from one state to another cannot occur much faster than 10^45 per second
(the Planck time, the smallest of all physically significant units of time).
The universe itself is a billion times more recent than 10^25 seconds.
(assuming the universe is between 10 to 20 billion years old). If any
specification of an event occurring in the physical universe requires at least one
elementary particle to specify it and such specification can no longer be generated
quickly from the Planck time, so these cosmological limitations imply
that the total number of events specified through cosmic history cannot
exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150. Thus, any specified event of
probability less than 1 in 10150 will remain unlikely even after all the
conceivable probabilistic resources of the visible universe have been factored. That is,
any event specified as unlikely as this could never be attributed to the
perhaps. To display specified complexity means that it corresponds to a
conditionally independent pattern (specification) of low complexity
specification, but where the event corresponding to that pattern has a
probability lower than the universal probability limit number (10150) and
therefore has high probabilistic complexity. Emile Borel, a French mathematician, proposed
1 in 1050 as a universal probability limit, below which (10-50) chance
can be definitively excluded, i.e., any specific event as unlikely as
this could never be attributed to chance.

To explain something, we employ three broad means of explanation: chance,

need and design. As a criterion for detecting design, complexity
specified enables us to decide which of these means of explanation is applicable. It does
this is answering three questions about the thing we are trying to explain: It is
contingent? Is it complex? Is it specified? Having these questions
sequentially as decision nodes in a graph, we can represent the
complexity specified as a criterion for detecting design: the so-called 'Filter'
"Explanatory" by Dembski.

Thus, where direct empirical corroboration is possible, the intentional design

it will really be present whenever the specific complexity is present.

2. The argument of irreducible complexity (Michael Behe):

In the book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, a professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh
University, Pennsylvania, connects the specified complexity to biological design.
through his concept of irreducible complexity. Behe defines a system as
irredeemably complex if it consists of a subsystem of various parts
interrelated, such that even removing a part alters the basic function of the
irrecoverable system.

For Behe, irreducible complexity is a reliable indicator of design. A system

biochemically irreducibly complex that Behe considers is the bacterial flagellum. The
flagellum is a rotor motor powered by a flow of acids with a whip-like tail
(or filament) that spins between 20,000 to 100,000 times per minute and whose movement
rotary allows the bacteria to navigate through its watery environment.

Behe demonstrates that this intricate machinery in this molecular engine - including a
rotor (the element that provides rotation), a stator (the stationary element), joints
of sealing, bushings, and a motor shaft - requires the coordinated interaction of at least
forty complex proteins (which form the irreducible core of the bacterial flagellum) and
that the absence of any one of them would result in the complete loss of the engine's function.
Behe argues that the Darwinian mechanism faces serious obstacles in trying to
to explain these irreducibly complex systems. In the book No Free Lunch, William
Dembski demonstrates how Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is constituted.
in a particular instance of specified complexity.

As soon as an essential component of an organism exhibits complexity

specified, any design attributable to that element passes to the organism as
a whole. To attribute design to an organism, one does not need to demonstrate that each
the aspect of the organism has intentional design. Organisms, like all objects
materials are products of a history and thus subject to the wear of factors
purely material. Automobiles, for example, get old and show the effects of
corrosion, from hail, and from friction forces. But that does not make them have
less intentional design. Likewise, intelligent design theorists argue that the
organisms, although displaying the effects of history (and this includes Darwinian factors)
such as genetic mutations and natural selection), also include an ineliminable core
that has intentional design that cannot be explained solely by those factors.

Intelligent design and religious traditions

The main connection of ID with religious traditions is through the design argument.
Perhaps the most well-known design argument is that of William Paley. He published the
your argument in 1802 in the book Natural Theology. The subtitle is
Amazing: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from
the Appearances of Nature [Evidences of the existence and attributes of divinity, collected
the appearances of nature]. Paley's project was to examine the aspects of the world
natural (which he called "appearances of nature") and draw conclusions from them about the
existence and attributes of an intelligence responsible for the design of those aspects
(Paley identified as the God of Christianity).

According to Paley, if someone finds a watch in a field (and thus does not have all
knowledge of how the clock originated), the adaptation of the clock pieces to tell the
hours guarantees that he is the product of an intelligence. Likewise, according to
Paley, the wonderful adaptations of means to ends in organisms (like the
complexity of the human eye with its vision capability) ensure that the
organisms are products of an intelligence. The TDI updates the watchmaker argument.
from Paley in light of contemporary mathematical theory of information and biology
molecular, aiming to bring this design argument into science.

In arguing in favor of the design of natural systems, ID is more modest than the
design arguments of natural theology. For natural theologians like Paley, the
the validity of the design argument did not depend on the fertility of the theoretical ideas of
design for science, but in the metaphysical and theological use that someone could obtain from it
design. A theologian of nature can point to nature and say, 'Clearly, the
the designer of this ecosystem valued variety over elegance.
theoretical design research trying to actually conduct a theoretical design study in that
ecosystem may respond, "Although this is an intriguing theological possibility,
As a DI theorist, I need to keep the research focused on the paths.
informational capable of producing this variety.

In his book Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant stated that the maximum that the
the design argument can establish is "an architect of the world that is limited by
adaptability of the material with which it works, not a world creator to whose idea
[mind] everything is subject.
as for the extrapolation of its use. For Kant, the design argument established
legitimately an architect (that is, an intelligent cause whose achievements of goals
are limited by the materials from which the world is made), but can never establish a
creator that originates the materials that the architect then models.

The DI is completely in accordance with this observation of Kant. Creation is always about the
ontological source of the world. DI, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is
about the arrangements of preexisting materials that point to an intelligence.
Therefore, creation and DI are very different.

There can be creation without DI and DI without creation. For example, there can be a doctrine of
creation in which God creates the world in such a way that nothing about the world points to
design. The evolutionary zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote a book entitled The
blind watchmaker: because the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Even
that Dawkins might be right about the universe not revealing any evidence of
intentional design, it is logically concluded that it was not created. It is logically
Is it possible that God created a world that provides no evidence of
design. On the other hand, it is logically possible that the world is full of signs of
intelligence but was not created. This was the vision of the ancient Stoics, in which the world
was eternal and uncreated, but even so a rational principle permeated the world
everything and produced brands of intelligence in it.

The implications of DI for the beliefs of religious traditions are profound. The rise
modern science has resulted in a vigorous attack on all religions that consider
the purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as fundamental and irreducible aspects of
reality. The peak of this attack came with Darwin's theory of evolution. The assertion
The central idea of Darwin's theory is that an unguided material process (random variation and
natural selection among other mechanisms) could explain the emergence of all the
complexity and biological order. In other words, Darwin seemed to demonstrate that
the design in biology (and, by implication, in nature in general) was dispensable. When
demonstrate that design is essential for the scientific understanding of the world
natural, the DI is rejuvenating the design argument while also breaking it down.
a flawed conception that the only defensible form of religious belief is the one that
consider purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as byproducts of processes
non-smart materials.

References and notes:

The concept of specified complexity was first used in 1973 by
Leslie Orgel in The Origins of Life, and then in 1999 by Paul Davies in The Fifth
Miracle.

In the TDI survey, the specified complexity is a statistical criterion used to

identify the effects of intelligent cause. See DEMBSKI, William. The Design
Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998. This work is rigorously technical and fundamental for the
understanding of ID as a scientific theory of design detection in nature.
For a less technical reading, see No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., 2002.

Probabilities and life

Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" appears in the book The Design Inference, p. 37.

The Black Box of Darwin

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity actually establishes three points.

important: logical, empirical and explanatory. From a logical point of view - certain
structures are likely inaccessible to a direct Darwinian pathway, but certain
biological structures also have irreducible complexity, therefore, they must also
to be inaccessible to a direct Darwinian path. The empirical point of view is the lack of
success, broad and systemic of evolutionary biology in discovering Darwinian paths
indirect processes that result in irreducibly complex biological structures - what
there are 'fantastical speculations': reason to doubt and even reject that the
indirect Darwinian pathways may be the answer to irreducible complexity. The
explanatory point of view concerns causal adequacy - the effect in question is the
irreducible complexity of certain biochemical machines, how did it arise? In
logical-mathematical bases the direct Darwinian paths are excluded. The absence of
The scientific evidence for indirect Darwinian pathways is as complete as it is for the
existence of Saci Pererê. Only intelligence remains, as it is a characteristic of
intelligence causes the production of irreducible complexity: intelligent design.

Dembski refers to this subsystem as the 'irreducible core of the system' - parts
that are essential to the basic function of the system.

The challenge of irreducible complexity to Darwinian evolution is real and does not proceed from
assertion that Behe's ideas have been scientifically refuted: "The answer
that I have received for repeating Behe's statement about evolutionary literature
that simply highlights the point being implicitly made by many others, such as
Crick, Denton, [Robert] Shapiro, Stanley, Taylor, Wesson - it's just that I obviously do not
I have been reading the right books. There are, I am convinced, evolutionists who have described
how the transitions in question could have occurred. However, when I ask in
which books can I find these discussions, or I do not receive any answer or
some titles that upon examination do not actually contain the promised accounts. Such
stories exist it seems to be something that is widely known, but I am still out of
find someone who knows where they exist" [David Griffin, in Religion and Scientific
Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts, Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 2000, p. 287, note #23]; "There are no detailed Darwinian reports for the
evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of
speculations for it to be so. It is noteworthy that Darwinism is accepted as a
satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject - evolution - with so little examination
rigorous about how well your basic theses work in specific examples
clarifiers of biological adaptation or diversity." [James Shapiro, from
University of Chicago, in 'In the Details... What?', National Review, 16 of
September 1996:62-65]. Interestingly, Shapiro made the same comment in his work
academic 'Genome System Architecture and Natural Genetic Engineering in
Evolution, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 870, May 18, 1999:23-
25.

No Free Lunch
Inc., 2002, cap. 5, 'The emergence of Irreducibly Complex Systems', especially
5.10.

Claude Shannon's information theory could measure the transport capacity of

information of a given sequence of symbols, but not the content of the information.

Scientific creationism is committed to the following propositions:

CC1: There was a sudden creation of the universe, of energy, and of life ex-nihilo.

CC2: Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to achieve the

development of all types of life from a single organism.

CC3: Changes in the types of animals and plants originally created occur only
within fixed limits.*CC4: There is a separate ancestral lineage for humans and
primates.

CC5: Geology can be explained by catastrophism, mainly by

occurrence of a worldwide flood.

CC6: The Earth and the types of life are relatively recent (on the order of thousands or
tens of thousands of years.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is committed to the following propositions:

DI1: The specified complexity and irreducible complexity are indicators or

safe design brands.

DI2: Biological systems exhibit specified complexity and employ

irreducibly complex subsystems.

DI3: Naturalistic mechanisms or non-directed causes are not sufficient to

explain the origin of specified complexity or irreducible complexity.

DI4: Therefore, intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of
specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Translated into Brazilian Portuguese by Laura Teixeira Motta as The Watchmaker

CeGo: The theory of evolution against divine design. São Paulo: Companhia das
Letters, 2001. Accurately translated 'intentional design', p. 18, in the epistemic sense.
of design as an empirically detectable effect.

Opponents and critics of ID frequently claim that ID is not science because

there is no plan for experimental verification. But the DI has this plan for
verification. Currently, there are ten research topics, but only five are here.
briefly considered:

Design detection methods. Techniques, methods, and criteria for design detection
intentional are widely used in various special sciences (the science of
criminal investigation, cryptography, archaeology, artificial intelligence (cf. the test
from Turing) and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence [SETI - Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence]). The criteria of Behe's irreducible complexity and complexity
specified by Dembski need to be at the center of this discussion with more seriousness
by the Brazilian academy.

Biological information. How matter was formed in very ways

special to constitute life? Dembski addresses this issue in his book
No Free Lunch, but there is a need for more work and research in this area.
•Minimum complexity. Living things are complex systems made up of
complex subsystems that in turn consist of other subsystems up to
that a level of organization is reached that is chemically simple. This
Does minimum complexity provide decisive confirmation of intelligent design?
•Capacity for evolution. The limitations in the capacity for evolution through
Material mechanisms constitute evidence of intentional design.
The principle of 'methodological engineering'. Biological systems need to be
understood as engineering systems: origin, construction, operation,
operation failure, wear, repair, modification (accidental or by design)
intentional).

Circumstantial conclusion:
The Darwinist view of life is quickly losing touch with reality and with
the intentional design that permeates the world at the biochemical level - a world about
what Darwin knew nothing about. There are many anomalies that have resisted all attempts
to be resolved by the existing procedures of the current paradigm, but the old
guard of Darwinism, even knowing that their ideas do not correspond to the
"facts" [Cazuza], is not and will not remain quiet: it currently exists in the United States
an inquisition without bonfires for those who criticize Darwinism scientifically.
In his book The End of Christendom, Malcolm Muggeridge wrote: “I am
even convinced that the theory of evolution, especially in the extent to which it has
it will be one of the biggest jokes in the history books of the future.
Posterity will marvel at how such a superficial and dubious hypothesis could
to be accepted with the incredible credulity that has been accepted.

The Darwinian view, however, like Ptolemy's 'epicycles', refuses to seek the
paradigmatic exit door, to be replaced by a new vision based on the
reality: Intelligent Design.

Bibliography on TDI:
1. BEHE, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor,
1997.

2. BUELL, Jon and HEARN, Virginia, (eds.), Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Dallas,
Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1993.

3. DEMBSKI, William A., The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through

SmallProbabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

4. ________. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without

Intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

5. ________. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About

Intelligent Design

6. GONZALEZ, Guillermo and RICHARDS, JayW., The Privileged Planet: How Our
Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.
Inc., 2004. An exceptional treaty on evidence of design derived from astronomy.
and cosmology.

7. MENUGE, Angus. Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.

8. THAXTON, Charles B.; BRADLEY, Walter L.; OLSEN, Roger L., The Mystery of
Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
Without a doubt, the book that laid the scientific foundation for modern TDI.

Bibliography on the cultural implications of TDI:

1. CAMPBELL, John Angus and MEYER, Stephen, Darwin, Design, and Public
Education. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 2003.

2. DEMBSKI, William A. (ed.), Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

3. _______. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

4. DEMBSKI, William A., and KUSHINER, James M. (eds.). Signs of Intelligence:

Understanding Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001.

5. DEMBSKI, William A. (ed.), Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism

Unconvincing. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2004.
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001.

8. _______. Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science. Grand Rapids, MI:
Brazos Press, 2003. The religion here is Darwinism.

Darwin on Trial
InterVarsity Press, 1991.

10. _______. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and
Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

11. _______. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1997. Translated into Portuguese in Brazil, but it is sold out.

12. _______. Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

13. _______. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Translated into Portuguese as Science,
Intolerance and Faith - The Cunha of Truth: breaking the foundations of naturalism.

14. _______. The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Bibliography on the history of TDI and MDI:

1. O’LEARY, Denyse. By Chance or by Design? Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress,
2004. Written by a Canadian journalist aimed at laypeople.
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.

3. DEMBSKI, William A., The Design Revolution, p. 310-17

The erroneous inference of most Brazilian academics that ID is creationism and

the total ignorance of Dembski's work is, for this Author, the cause of the
alienation of the TDI by the Academy. The TDI falls or establishes itself by its own
merits that need to be duly considered: if the design found in nature
It has been scientifically demonstrated that it is apparent, undetectable, and a product of laws and
unguided natural processes such as chance, necessity, mutations, and selection [are not
intelligence attribute???] naturally we took TDI off the debate table as theory
which aims to replace the current theories of the origin and evolution of life.

In the United States, the largest democracy in the world, it is not a crime to criticize the government, but
Criticizing Darwin is considered a crime of lèse-majesté. Several university professors,
that somehow suffered academic sanctions, are mentioned by Angus
Menuge in Agents Under Fire, p. 200-01. The main reason for us at NBDI to protect
currently the teachers and students of public and private universities who are
sympathetic to TDI is due to this type of 'ideological patrol'. The 'freedom of
the 'chair' and the debate on diversity of ideas was thrown in the trash. In Brazil it is not
less different. The reason for this? The toxin of philosophical materialism disguised as
scientific methodology.
Source:
http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com
About the author:
Enézio Eugênio de Almeida Filho
Graduated in Human Sciences from the Federal University of Amazonas (1980) and a master's degree in
History of Science by the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (2008). Doctoral student in History of
Science, Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (2009). Coordinator of NBDI (Brazilian Center for Development and Innovation)
Intelligent Design), Campinas - SP, since 1998. (Text informed by the author)