Breakthrough for Intelligent Design? (Part 6)

This is part 6 of a series of 7 posts by Lars Johan Erkell, with comments on each by Ola Hössjer and a reply by Erkell. Part 1 will be found here. They are translations of 2020 posts in Swedish from the Biolog(g) blog of the Department of Biology of Gothenburg University.

Breakthrough for Intelligent design? (part 6)

November 13, 2020

by Lars Johan Erkell

Why was this article written?

As I hope has become clear, Thorvaldsen and Hössjer’s article does not meet the requirements that one reasonably could expect from a scientific publication. It pretends to have results that do not exist. The article relies entirely on a statistical method to demonstrate designs that is useless. It contains references to an indeterminate supernatural designer that is resorted to ad hoc to achieve desired results. It introduces the completely revolutionary concept of "non-physical information" without definition or discussion. It contains a grossly garbled quote. In addition, well-known pseudoscientific concepts such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" are referred to as if they were established science. This cannot be called science. It can only be called pseudoscience.

Of course, Thorvaldsen and Hössjer have received criticism. Three biologists write in a comment to the Journal of Theoretical Biology, among other things:

… The central claim of this paper is that because biological systems are complex then they must be fine-tuned. This inference is flawed and is not supported by the evidence.

Nor is the mathematician Jason Rosenhouse gracious in his criticism. He concludes thus:

… The authors claim to have used probability theory to establish a scientifically rigorous and useful notion of “fine-tuning,” but they have failed because we have nothing like the information we would need to carry out meaningful probability calculations. Done.

But I don’t think I’ve adequately communicated just how bad this paper is. The authors are constantly tossing out bits of mathematical jargon and notation, but then they do nothing with them. There is a frustrating lack of precision, as when they variously describe fine-tuning as an object, an entity, a method, and an attribute of a system, all on the first page of the paper. They constantly cite creationist references, with only the most glancing mention that any of this work has been strongly and cogently criticized. They say we should give fair consideration to a “design model” for the origin of complex structures, but they do not give the beginning of a clue as to what such a model entails.

In short, it’s hard to believe this paper could have gotten through an honest peer-review process (as opposed to one in which ideology played a big role). Whatever happened behind the scenes, it’s a huge black eye for the journal.

The review is worth reading in its entirety. It also covers things I didn’t cover here.

Steinar Thorvaldsen is Professor of Information Science at Norway's Arctic University in Tromsø and Ola Hössjer is Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University. They are both established professors at reputable universities. I find it hard to imagine that they would write papers of this poor quality in their own fields (I also doubt they would get away with it). So why have they written this article? As experienced and competent researchers, they must reasonably be aware of the article's devastating scientific flaws. Why are they willing to risk name and reputation to write an article that makes me and many colleagues facepalm and wonder what has gotten into the authors? This is not something you expect from a professor at a respected university.

My guess is that they see it as their task to spearhead a new kind of science that includes a designer, and that they feel is not limited by the materialism that characterizes established natural science. The idea of “Intelligent Design” as an alternative, non-materialistic science was launched in the USA in the 1990s by the conservative Christian think tank Discovery Institute. The institute’s agenda was revealed in 1999 when the policy document The Wedge Document was leaked and posted on the Internet. It appears that they see “materialism” and moral relativism as the cause of all evil in society. Materialism must therefore be crushed:

The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

An important part of materialism is today’s natural science, and therefore is an overarching goal

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Design theory has been created to replace materialistic science:

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The document shows very clearly that the ID project is a political/religious project; it is about working for a society that is completely imbued with a Christian religiosity. A theocracy, in other words. Natural science is "materialistic" and therefore stands in the way. Therefore, it must be replaced by a religiously based design science.¹ In case any reader should think that I am presenting conspiracy theories, I would recommend a careful reading of the document.

This explains why ID continues to be pursued as a science even though the project is completely sterile - in more than 20 years it has failed to produce a single solid result that concretely demonstrates design in nature. On the other hand, mountains of material have been produced that criticize established natural science in general and the theory of evolution in particular. The goal of the activity is not primarily to convince the researchers; it is to convince the public and decision- makers at various levels that design theory is better science than the established, materialistic, natural science. The document shows that the strategy is to defeat science in the political arena.

But what does all this have to do with Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer? It turns out that they are both connected to the Norwegian foundation BioCosmos, Thorvaldsen as chairman of the board and Hössjer as "ambassador". BioCosmos aims to spread Intelligent Design, primarily to youth and young adults, and is Norwegian partner of the Discovery Institute. This article falls into the same pattern as countless other pro-ID articles: it is clearly written to give the impression that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it contains no results, but many arguments against the theory of evolution.

Are Thorvaldsen and Hössjer aware that they are participating in a crusade against natural science? They should, as professional scientists, be aware that ID is a pseudo-scientific, indeed anti-scientific, project.

Whatever the case may be, it is sad that two such competent and meritorious researchers are unable to live up to the scientific integrity one has the right to expect from them.

1. English Wikipedia has a comprehensive and informative series on ID. See also:

Barbara Forrest: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goal. Center for Inquiry (2007)

Lenny Flank: Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America. Red and Black Publishers (2009)

Comment by Ola Hössjer June 29, 2021 4:05 am

Part 6: Why was the fine-tuning article written?

In part 6, Erkell continues and asks what prompted me and Thorvaldsen to write the article on fine-tuning. I quote:

Steinar Thorvaldsen is Professor of Information Science at Norway's Arctic University in Tromsø and Ola Hössjer is Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University. They are both established professors at reputable universities. I find it hard to imagine that they would write papers of this poor quality in their own fields (I also doubt they would get away with it). So why have they written this article? As experienced and competent researchers, they must reasonably be aware of the article's devastating scientific flaws. Why are they willing to risk name and reputation to write an article that makes me and many colleagues facepalm and wonder what has gotten into the authors? This is not something you expect from a professor at a respected university. My guess is that they see it as their task to spearhead a new kind of science that includes a designer, and that they feel is not limited by the materialism that characterizes established natural science.

In parts 1-5 I responded to Erkell’s claims that TH2020 is a pseudoscientific article of poor quality. Let me therefore answer Erkell's question why I have been involved in writing this and other articles with an ID-based or creationist focus. There are two main reasons. Firstly, I have been part of the academic community since I started studying university mathematics at the age of 15. This long period taught me a lot about how (empirical) science should be conducted. I advocate academic freedom, where all relevant theories are allowed to take part and compete on equal footing in terms of providing the best explanations of data, in the search for the truth. For more than 20 years, I have studied genetics and evolutionary biology, and found that Darwin's theory of evolution contains crucial flaws that are rarely mentioned, neither in school nor at universities. It is my duty as a scientist (part of the third task) to engage in the public sphere and spread the experiences that I have acquired, both from my own research and by learning from the research of others. My conscience therefore urges me to enter the evolution-design debate, and this is more important than political correctness.

Second, all empirical science is based on faith assumptions. All attempts to let only empirical data guide natural science (such as logical positivism) have failed. These beliefs are especially important for questions of origin, because we cannot replicate through repeated experiments how life arose, or how the diversity of life between different species came about. Therefore, every researcher who engages in origin issues will be more or less guided by their starting assumptions and beliefs. So am I. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and Lord, at the age of 23-24, and over the years I have realized more and more how trustworthy and reliable the Bible is. I am therefore convinced that design-inspired or biblically inspired (and falsifiable) models provide the best explanation for genetic, geological and morphological data. But I don't want to force these explanations on others, but let the ID and creationist models compete with secular models on equal terms. With sadness in my heart I notice how methodological naturalism has gradually narrowed (and forced) science into a secular direction ever since the 18th century. This has to a large extent, driven development of society in a materialistic direction. And the theory of evolution has had a decisive role in this process, because it is the creation story of naturalism, and thus influences many other sciences. If neither God nor anything else supernatural exists, then everything must have arisen by itself, just as the theory of evolution claims. This is precisely why it is so sensitive to criticize the theory of evolution, of which Erkell's article series is a typical example. To criticize the theory of evolution is simply to question the foundations of a worldview that dominates a secular culture.

After Erkell’s opening question about what prompted me and Thorvaldsen to write the fine-tuning article, he goes on to discuss an American ID think tank, the Discovery Institute, and its efforts to influence societal development away from materialism. The reason is that both Thorvaldsen and myself have been involved in a Norwegian think tank that is positive about ID:

But what does all this have to do with Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer? It turns out that they are both connected to the Norwegian foundation BioCosmos, Thorvaldsen as chairman of the board and Hössjer as "ambassador". BioCosmos aims to spread Intelligent Design, primarily to youth and young adults, and is Norwegian partner of the Discovery Institute. This article falls into the same pattern as countless other pro-ID articles: it is clearly written to give the impression that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it contains no results, but many arguments against the theory of evolution.

Are Thorvaldsen and Hössjer aware that they are participating in a crusade against natural science? They should, as professional scientists, be aware that ID is a pseudo-scientific, indeed anti-scientific, project.

I already argued (in Parts 1-5) that ID and creationism are science, and I will therefore not repeat my arguments in parts 1-5. I will content myself by saying that I neither consider TH2020 to be an example of pseudo-science or anti-science. But Erkell;s claims are not surprising, since he very strongly advocates methodological naturalism, that is, secular science. From Erkell's point of view, a crusade against natural science is the same as a crusade against secular natural science. As I have stressed in this series of articles, I believe that biblically inspired models and design-inspired models very often have much better explanatory power than the corresponding secular models. But since I don’t want to force others to take this approach, it’s hardly a crusade. One can rather ask the question whether Erkell is waging a crusade against all science that does not start from methodological naturalism.

Reply by Lars Johan Erkell September 8, 2021 7:21 am

In this post, I discuss the possible motivations of the article authors. In your reply, you write: "For more than 20 years, I have studied genetics and evolutionary biology, and found that Darwin's theory of development contains crucial flaws that are rarely mentioned, neither in school nor at university." From what you write, I suspect that you have drawn your knowledge from creationist sources rather than from university courses. The formulation of "crucial flaws rarely mentioned" is a classic creationist theme. But there is no science that is complete or perfect; there are gaps and "critical deficiencies" in all fields of science. However, creationists are most interested in the flaws they see in evolutionary biology. This fact that the flaws are "rarely mentioned" and your talk of "political correctness" also connects to a well-known creationist theme: the atheist scientists who completely dominate science and try to stifle all opposition to the theory of evolution.

I believe you have misunderstood your duties as a scientist when it comes to engagement in the public sphere. The university pays you to present the science and scientific view that the university stands for, not for you to present a scientific view (and a view of evolutionary biology) that the university does not stand for. As a researcher, you certainly have a lot of freedom to choose different perspectives, but I think you are probably crossing the line here.

You write that "It is with sadness in my heart that I see how methodological naturalism has gradually narrowed (and forced) science into a secular direction since the 18th century", and here I think we have come to the heart of the matter. You see an ideological struggle between two cultures, one secular and the other spiritual. I, on the other hand, see a successful, secular, research program replacing a sterile, spiritual, program. Materialistic research has gradually replaced research on a non-materialistic basis because it actually works and produces results. I have never seen any example of successful natural science on a spiritual/religious basis.

But as I write in the seventh post in the series, I could imagine an ID-inspired research if it produced concrete results. But we are not there. All you can offer are assurances that an ID-inspired research will open up to new advances by freeing science from materialistic lock-ins. However, I can't see any signs that this could be the case. I discuss this further in the post "Science, hypotheses and Intelligent Design".

You avoid perhaps the most serious part of my criticism, namely that the ID project is fundamentally not about science but is a political/religious project aimed at building a society completely imbued with Christian religiosity - a theocracy. Do you have any comment on that?