1. Is there a Theory of Design?

3. INTELLIGENT DESIGN
}
Implications
Philosophy
Identity
Mechanism
Detection
} Science

4. CASEY LUSKIN
WAYS DESIGNERS ACT WHEN DESIGNING
1. Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to
solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in
intricate patterns that perform a specific function
2. Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into
systems
3. Intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components in different systems
4. Intelligent agents typically create functional things (though we may
sometimes think them to be functionless, not realizing the true
function)

5. THE MACGYVER PRINCIPLE
“The simpler the solution to a
problem, the more intelligence and
ingenuity it requires.” (Mark Perakh)
Intelligent design will result in simple,
optimal, minimal solutions to design
problems.
Unintelligent design will result in
complex, sub-optimal, sprawling,
redundant solutions to design
problems.

6. THE MACGYVER PRINCIPLE
“The simpler the solution to a
problem, the more intelligence and
ingenuity it requires.” (Mark Perakh)
Intelligent design will result in simple,
optimal, minimal solutions to design
problems.
Unintelligent design will result in
complex, sub-optimal, sprawling,
redundant solutions to design
problems.

7. CASEY LUSKIN
THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN
1. Natural systems will be found that contain many parts arranged in
intricate patterns that perform specific functions (e.g. complex and
specified information)
2. Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in
the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors
3. Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional
parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms
4. Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable
functions

8. CASEY LUSKIN
THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN
1. Bacterial Flagellum
2. Cambrian Explosion
3. “Genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms
whose alleged common ancestors are not thought to have
had such forms of eyes or limbs” (Homeotic genes)
4. Design encourages search for function of “junk,” Darwinism
doesn’t

9. DETECTION

10. THE DESIGN ARGUMENT
Natural mechanisms could not have produced many of the
structures in living cells because …
these structures possess “Irreducible Complexity” (Behe), or
these structures possess “Complex Specified
Information” (Dembski)

11. PAUL NELSON 2004
“Easily the biggest challenge facing the
ID community is to develop a full-
fledged theory of biological design. We
don’t have such a theory right now, and
that’s a real problem. ... Right now, we’ve
got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a
handful of notions such as ‘irreducible
complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—
but, as yet, no general theory of
biological design.”

14. “Other than updating the list of my children in the Acknowledgements … there
is very little of the original text I would change if I wrote it today”

15. MICHAEL BEHE
Claims that Darwinism cannot
explain biochemical complexity
“Irreducibly complex systems …
cannot evolve in a Darwinian
fashion”
“Purposeful arrangement of parts”
implies Design

16. NEO-PALEYISM
We infer design whenever parts appear arranged to accomplish a
function
The strength of the inference is quantitative and depends on the
evidence; the more parts, and the more intricate and sophisticated the
function, the stronger is our conclusion of design
Aspects of life overpower us with the appearance of design
Since we have no other convincing explanation for that strong
appearance of design … then we are rationally justified in concluding
that parts of life were indeed purposely designed by an intelligent agent
2006, p. 265

17. MICHAEL BEHE
“The result … is a loud, clear, piercing cry
of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous
and so significant that it must be ranked as
one of the greatest achievements in the
history of science. The discovery rivals
those of Newton & Einstein, Lavoisier &
Schrödinger, Pasteur & Darwin. The
observation of the intelligent design of life
is as momentous as the observation that
the earth goes round the sun or that
disease is caused by bacteria or that
radiation is emitted in quanta” (233)

18. MICHAEL BEHE
“[I]f random evolution is true, there
must have been a large number of
transitional forms between the
Mesonychid and the ancient whale.
Where are they?”
1994

19. MICHAEL BEHE
“[I]f random evolution is true, there
must have been a large number of
transitional forms between the
Mesonychid and the ancient whale.
Where are they?”
1994

20. BLOOD CLOTTING CASCADE

21. IMMUNE RESPONSE

22. CITRIC ACID CYCLE

23. BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM

25. le !
ssib
po
o rd
re c
ss il
o fo
N

26. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
“By irreducibly complex I mean a
single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function,
wherein the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively
cease functioning. … An irreducibly
complex biological system, if there is
such a thing, would be a powerful
challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (39)

27. TESTING BEHE IS DIFFICULT
He acknowledges the driving forces of
evolutionary change: e.g. natural
selection, genetic drift, founder effects,
gene flow, meiotic drive, gene
duplication, transposition …
“The production of some biological
improvements by mutation and natural
selection - by evolution - is quite
compatible with intelligent design
theory.”

29. It’s a trap!

33. INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS
1875
“The[se] six known genera…all capture insects.
This is effected by Drosophyllum … solely by
the viscid fluid secreted from their glands; by
Drosera, through the same means, together
with the movements of the tentacles; by
Dionaea … through the closing of the blades of
the leaf. In [this] last genera rapid movement
makes up for the loss of viscid secretion. …
The parent form of Dionaea … seems to have
been closely allied to Drosera, and to have had
rounded leaves, supported on distinct
footstalks, and furnished with tentacles all
round the circumference, with other tentacles
and sessile glands on the upper surface.”

34. MOLECULAR EVIDENCE

35. “ODD” DESIGN
“Features that strike us as odd in a
design might have been placed there
by the designer for a reason - for
artistic reasons, for variety, to show
off, for some as-yet-undetected
practical purpose, or for some
unguessable reason.”

39. ARGUMENT
Observation: The cell contains
biochemical machines in which the loss of
a single component may abolish function.
Assertion: Any of these machines that are
missing a part is, by definition, non-
functional and leaves natural selection
with nothing to select for.
Conclusion: These machines could not
have been produced by natural selection.

40. CLAIM
“[T]here is no publication in the
scientific literature – in prestigious
journals, specialty journals, or books –
that describes how the molecular
evolution of any real, complex,
biochemical system either did occur
or even might have occurred.” (p.
185)

41. ID’S “CLEAR AND DARING
PREDICTION”
“Darwinists will not begin filling in
plausible, testable scenarios for
any of the irreducibly complex
cellular systems.”
Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the
Science of Intelligent Design (2006), p. 78

42. FLAGELLUM

43. propeller
universal joint
bushing
drive
shaft
stator rotor

44. THE FLAGELLUM & ID
The flagellum “has a machinelike
irreducible complexity, which is an
empirical marker of design because it
rules out step-by-step evolution
through selection. Take one part away
from the flagellum and its rotary
system won’t work … Its forty parts,
all of them precisely shaped proteins,
are prima facie evidence for an
intelligence behind life”
Woodward, 2006, p. 11

45. Creation Science Research Quarterly!

48. You keep using that word. I
do not think it means what
you think it means.

49. Start with the 50-
part bacterial
flagellum. . . . And
let’s take away 40 of
the parts:
Leaving just 10.
What’s left should
be non-functional
according to Behe.

50. Bacterial
Flagellum
(~50 parts)
Type-III
Secretory
System
(10 parts)
“Any of these machines that are missing a part
is, by definition, non-functional .”

51. Individual Parts!
Biochemical “Machine”!
Function Favored by Natural
Selection!
No function. Therefore, natural
selection cannot shape components.!

52. Individual Parts:"
Biochemical!
System"
New Functions Emerge from Components Originate
Combinations of with different
Components" functions."

53. Filament, hook, rod, linkers
L-ring and P-ring
Outside cell
(outer membrane)
(cell wall)
Motor proteins
(inner membrane)
Export apparatus Inside (cytoplasm)
Chemotaxis sensor

54. Axial protein family
Type II secretion
(outer membrane)
(cell wall)
Ion transport
(inner membrane)
Type III secretion
Signal transduction

55. 1. Aizawa, S. I. (2001). “Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems.” FEMS Microbiol Lett 202(2): 157-164.
2. Bitter, W. (2003). “Secretins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: large holes in the outer membrane.” Arch Microbiology 179(5): 307-314.
3. Blocker, A., Komoriya, K. and Aizawa, S. I. (2003). “Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
100(6): 3027-3030.
4. Cordes, F. S., Komoriya, K., Larquet, E., Yang, S., Egelman, E. H., Blocker, A. and Lea, S. M. (2003). “Helical structure of the needle of the type III secretion system of Shigella flexneri.” J Biol
Chem 278(19): 17103-17107.
5. Dailey, F. E. and Macnab, R. M. (2002). “Effects of lipoprotein biogenesis mutations on flagellar assembly in Salmonella.” J Bacteriol 184(3): 771-776.
6. Daniell, S. J., Kocsis, E., Morris, E., Knutton, S., Booy, F. P. and Frankel, G. (2003). “3D structure of EspA filaments from enteropathogenic Escherichia coli.” Mol Microbiol 49(2): 301-308.
7. Homma, M., DeRosier, D. J. and Macnab, R. M. (1990a). “Flagellar hook and hook-associated proteins of Salmonella typhimurium and their relationship to other axial components of
the flagellum.” J Mol Biol 213(4): 819-832.
8. Homma, M., Kutsukake, K., Hasebe, M., Iino, T. and Macnab, R. M. (1990b). “FlgB, FlgC, FlgF and FlgG. A family of structurally related proteins in the flagellar basal body of Salmonella
typhimurium.” J Mol Biol 211(2): 465-477.
9. Hueck, C. J. (1998). “Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants.” Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62(2): 379-433.
10. Kirby, J. R., Kristich, C. J., Saulmon, M. M., Zimmer, M. A., Garrity, L. F., Zhulin, I. B. and Ordal, G. W. (2001). “CheC is related to the family of flagellar switch proteins and acts
independently from CheD to control chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis.” Mol Microbiol 42(3): 573-585.
11. Kojima, S. and Blair, D. F. (2001). “Conformational change in the stator of the bacterial flagellar motor.” Biochemistry 40(43): 13041-13050.
12. Koretke, K. K., Lupas, A. N., Warren, P. V., Rosenberg, M. and Brown, J. R. (2000). “Evolution of two-component signal transduction.” Mol Biol Evol 17(12): 1956-1970.
13. Mathews, M. A., Tang, H. L. and Blair, D. F. (1998). “Domain analysis of the FliM protein of Escherichia coli.” J Bacteriol 180(21): 5580-5590.
14. Plano, G. V., Day, J. B. and Ferracci, F. (2001). “Type III export: new uses for an old pathway.” Mol Microbiol 40(2): 284-293.
15. Saijo-Hamano, Y., Uchida, N., Namba, K. and Oosawa, K. (2004). “In Vitro Characterization of FlgB, FlgC, FlgF, FlgG, and FliE, Flagellar Basal Body Proteins of Salmonella.” J Mol Biol
339(2): 423-435.
16. Vogler, A. P., Homma, M., Irikura, V. M. and Macnab, R. M. (1991). “Salmonella typhimurium mutants defective in flagellar filament regrowth and sequence similarity of FliI to F0F1,
vacuolar, and archaebacterial ATPase subunits.” J Bacteriol 173(11): 3564-3572.
17. Zhulin, I. B., Nikolskaya, A. N. and Galperin, M. Y. (2003). “Common extracellular sensory domains in transmembrane receptors for diverse signal transduction pathways in bacteria and
archaea.” J Bacteriol 185(1): 285-294.

56. NO PUBLICATIONS?
Number of peer reviewed articles
discussing the homologies: 17
Number cited in DBB: 0

59. GENE DUPLICATION
One of a number of known
methods for generating new
functions
Creation of duplicate allows
evolution of new function while
maintaining old function.

60. Mechanism by which an
ancestral trypsinogen
gene was transformed
into an AntiFreeze
GlycoProtein gene
Chen et al. (1997) “Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish” PNAS 94: 3811.

61. Gene Duplication and
the Vertebrate
Clotting System
Orange: Duplicates of core serine proteases.
Light Blue: Duplicates of the ceruloplasmin family.
Yellow: Duplicates of the transglutamase family.
Dark blue: Duplicates of prekallikrein.

63. IMMUNE RESPONSE
“We can look high or we can look
low, in books or in journals, but the
result is the same. The scientific
literature has no answers to the
question of the origin of the immune
system.”

64. Behe was presented with 58
articles and books. His
response?

65. IMMUNE RESPONSE
“I am quite skeptical, although I
haven't read them, that in fact they
present detailed rigorous models for
the evolution of the immune system
by random mutation and natural
selection.”

68. NO PUBLICATIONS?
Number of peer reviewed articles
discussing immune system: 357
Number cited in DBB: 6

69. IMMUNE RESPONSE
“We can look high or we can look
low, in books or in journals, but the
result is the same. The scientific
literature has no answers to the
question of the origin of the immune
system.”

70. CROSS-EXAM IN KITZMILLER
Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to
see a step-by-step description of how the immune
system, vertebrate immune system developed?
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by
mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant
information such as what is the population size of the
organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is
the selective value for the mutation, are there any
detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such
questions.
Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out
those?
A. I am not confident that the immune system arose
through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that
such a study would be fruitful.

71. WILLIAM DEMBSKI
“Behe’s challenge was not simply to
find a Darwinian explanation for the
origin of a biochemical machine, but
to find a detailed Darwinian
explanation for the origin of an
irreducibly complex biochemical
machine.” (2002)

72. WILLIAM DEMBSKI
“[I]t’s not ID’s task to match your
pathetic level of detail in telling
mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and
an intelligence is responsible and
indispensable for certain structures,
then it makes no sense to try to ape
your method of connecting the
dots.” (2001)

73. ERIC ROTHSCHILD
“Thankfully, there are scientists who do
search for answers to the question of the
origin of the immune system. ... The scientists
who wrote those books and articles toil in
obscurity, without book royalties or speaking
engagements. Their efforts help us combat
and cure serious medical conditions. By
contrast, Professor Behe and the entire
intelligent design movement are doing
nothing to advance scientific or medical
knowledge and are telling future generations
of scientists, don't bother.”

74. JUDGE JOHN JONES III
“[Behe] was presented with fifty-eight
peer-reviewed publications, nine books,
and several immunology textbook
chapters about the evolution of the
immune system; however, he simply
insisted that this was still not sufficient
evidence of evolution, and that it was not
“good enough” ... We find that such
evidence demonstrates that the ID
argument is dependent upon setting a
scientifically unreasonable burden of proof
for the theory of evolution.”

76. H. ALLEN ORR
“An irreducibly complex system can be built
gradually by adding parts that, while initially
just advantageous, become - because of
later changes - essential. The logic is very
simple. Some part (A) initially does some
job (and not very well, perhaps). Another
part (B) later gets added because it helps A.
This new part isn't essential, it merely
improves things. But later on, A (or
something else) may change in such a way
that B now becomes indispensable. This
process continues as further parts get
folded into the system. And at the end of
the day, many parts may all be required.”
Boston Review, Dec 1996

78. A “fossil”
pathway
“This primitive structure of the
pathway still works in several
anaerobic bacteria and
invertebrates”

79. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS

80. CLAIM
“[T]here is no publication in the
scientific literature – in prestigious
journals, specialty journals, or books –
that describes how the molecular
evolution of any real, complex,
biochemical system either did occur
or even might have occurred.” (p.
185)

81. CLAIM
“Darwinists will not begin filling in
plausible, testable scenarios for
any of the irreducibly complex
cellular systems.”
Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the
Science of Intelligent Design (2006), p. 78

85. IMPERVIOUS TO CHANGE
“Other than updating the list of my
children in the Acknowledgements …
there is very little of the original text
I would change if I wrote it today”
Afterword of the “Tenth Anniversary” edition, 2006.

86. IMPERVIOUS TO CHANGE
“Other than updating the list of my
children in the Acknowledgements …
there is very little of the original text
I would change if I wrote it today”
Afterword of the “Tenth Anniversary” edition, 2006.

87. THE EDGE OF INCOHERENCE
2007

88. }
D
E
S
I
G
N

89. Phylum Arthropoda
Subphylum Chelicerata
Class Merostomata (horseshoe crabs, eurypterids)
Class Pycnogonida (sea spiders)
Class Arachnida (spiders, ticks, mites)
Subphylum Crustacea
Class Remipedia
Class Cephalocarida
Class Branchiopoda (fairy shrimp, water fleas, etc.)
Class Maxillopoda (ostracods, copepods, barnacles)
Class Malacostraca (isopods, amphipods, krill, crabs, shrimp, etc.)
Subphylum Uniramia
Class Chilopoda (centipedes)
Class Diplopoda (millipedes)
Class Insecta

90. Phylum Chordata
At the origin of life: "intelligent design is
quite compatible with the view that the
universe operates by unbroken natural law,
with the design of life perhaps packed into
its initial set-up.“ [166]
Three billion years later: "Explicit design
appears to reach into biology to a certain
level, to the level of the vertebrate class,
but not necessarily further“ [220]

91. Phylum Chordata
Hyperoartia (Lampreys)
Chondrichthyes (Cartilagenous fish)
Actinopterygii (Ray-finned fish)
Sarcopterygii (Lobe-finned fish)
Amphibia (Amphibians)
Sauropsida (Reptiles and Birds)
Mammalia (Mammals)

92. ACCEPTS HUMAN ANCESTRY
Vitamin C pseudogene: "Both humans and
chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in
other mammals helps make vitamin C.... It's
hard to imagine how there could be stronger
evidence for common ancestry of chimps
and humans." (71-72)
Hemoglobin pseudogene: “[C]ompelling
evidence for the shared ancestry of humans
and other primates comes from ... a broken
hemoglobin gene." (71)

93. FRONT LOADING
“Suppose that nearly four billion
years ago the designer made the first
cell, already containing all of the
irreducibly complex biochemical
systems discussed here and many
others. (One can postulate that the
designs for systems that were to be
used later, such as blood clotting,
were present but not ‘turned
on)” (DBB 227-8)

94. Miracles?
Continuous miracle?

95. CATS AND DOGS AND
ELEPHANTS, OH MY!
Medved: “What you’re talking about really is
the leaps, aren’t you. I mean the kind of
random mutations, or allegedly random
mutations, who [sic] create a new species.”
Behe: “Yeah, well I wouldn’t call it species. I’d, I’d
go a little higher, maybe genus or something in
biology. Biology has a number of levels and you
might be able to get, say, from a wolf to a dog
using random mutation and natural selection.
But I don’t think you can get from a dog to a
cat or a precursor organism and get from a
dog to a cat or certainly to an elephant.”
The Michael Medved Show June 5th 2007.

97. NEO-PALEYITE LANGUAGE
• exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts • enormously complex coherent molecular
machinery
• astonishingly complex, coherent systems
• elegant molecular outboard motors
• stupendously complex systems
• elegant immune system
• enormously complex cellular mechanisms
• intricate genetic control programs
• startlingly complex pathway of flagellum
assembly • stupendously intricate cellular machines
• staggering complexity of modern biology • sophisticated living machinery
• tremendously complex elegant complexity • highly sophisticated, automated mechanisms
• stunning complexity • ultrasophisticated molecular machinery

98. “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally
designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red
blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” (237)

99. Malaria kills between one and three million people a year, most of them
children in Sub-Saharan Africa. It “was intentionally designed”.

100. Eukaryotic cilium
Inter-Flagellar Transport (IFT) assembles the cilium

101. Bioessays (2006)

102. INTER-FLAGELLAR
TRANSPORT
“IFT exponentially increases the
difficulty of explaining the irreducibly
complex cilium. It is clear from careful
experimental work with all ciliated
cells that have been examined, from
alga to mice, that a functioning cilium
requires a working IFT. “ [p. 94]

103. “MORE THAN ONE WAY TO BUILD A CILIUM”
Briggs et al (2004) Current Biology 14(15): R611-R612

104. Plasmodium falciparum

107. ROB KOONS
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION
“Dembski is the Isaac
Newton of information
theory, and since this is the
Age of Information, that
makes Dembski one of the
most important thinkers of
our time. “

108. ROB KOONS
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION
“Dembski is the Isaac
Newton of information
theory, and since this is the
Age of Information, that
makes Dembski one of the
most important thinkers of
our time. “

109. WILLIAM DEMBSKI
BA Psychology, U. Illinois, 1981
MS Statistics, U. Illinois, 1983
MS Mathematics, U. Chicago, 1985
PhD Mathematics, U. Chicago, 1988
MA, Philosophy, U. Illinois, 1993
PhD, Philosophy, U. Illinois, 1996
MDiv, Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996
Fellow of the Discovery Institute, 1996 -

110. WILLIAM DEMBSKI
Associate Research Professor, Baylor
University, 1999 - 2005
Director, Charles Polyani Center, 1999 - 2000
Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology
and Science, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2005 - 2006
Professor of Philosophy, Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006 -

111. THE DESIGN
INFERENCE

112. THE DESIGN
INFERENCE

113. Information

114. Specified
Information

115. Complex
Specified
Information

116. REQUIREMENTS FOR CSI
Contingency: There is a choice (vs. necessity)
Complexity: Not so simple that the object can be explained
by chance
Specification: Object exhibits a pattern characteristic of
intelligence

117. ARE THESE CSI?

118. ARE THESE CSI?
S

119. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF

120. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS

121. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK

122. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK
SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD

123. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK
SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD
INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORD

124. ARE THESE CSI?
S
SDF
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
SDFDJSLSDGHKHERSKHSGJHDSGK
SDGAHAKAUFAILASJAJSDHAATDQYEQADSD
INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORD
SINNEFIANNAFAILATAFAOIGHEALLAGEIREINN

125. SPECIFICATION
“Specification depends on the
knowledge of subjects. Is specification
therefore subjective? Yes.”
“Everything depends on what [one]
knows, believes, determines, and
provisionally accepts”

126. The
Explanatory
Filter Yes
Regularity
No
Yes
Chance
No
Yes
Design!
HP: High Probability
No IP: Intermediate Probability
sp.SP: Specified small probability
Chance

127. Defines “design” in
purely negative terms. Yes
Regularity
Where is the cut-off No
between HP, IP & sp/ Yes
SP? Chance
No
How do you define
“specified” particularly Yes
Design!
if it is highly sensitive
to changes in current No HP: High Probability
IP: Intermediate Probability
knowledge? sp.SP: Specified small probability
Chance

128. Yes
D?
Yes
Regularity
Don’t Know
No
Don’t Know Yes
(Yet). Chance
No
Yes
Design!
D: Decidable?
No HP: High Probability
IP: Intermediate Probability
sp.SP: Specified small probability
Chance

129. 2008
“I’ve pretty much dispensed with the
EF. It suggests that chance, necessity,
and design are mutually exclusive.
They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as
a criterion for design detection.”

130. CSI
CSI is “any specified information
whose complexity exceeds 500 bits
of information”
This is Dembski’s Universal Probability
Bound (UPB) as 500 bits has a
probability of 10-150.

131. UNIVERSAL PROBABILITY
BOUND
UPB = No of particles x Planck time x
Age of Universe
UPB = 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150
“All the probabilistic resources in the
known physical universe cannot conspire
to render remotely probable an event
whose probability is less than this
universal probability bound.” (Dembski,
The Design Revolution, p. 87)

132. Ix = - log2 px
Information is seen as a removal of
possibilities (decrease in uncertainty)
1 bit = probability of 0.5
Ix
Probability

133. 1997
“Do the calculation. Take the numbers
seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to
yield design.”

134. “I show that undirected natural processes like the
Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating
the specified complexity that exists in biological
organisms.”
How? By a calculation showing that the probability of
spontaneous assembly of the proteins in the
flagellum lies beyond the range of the “universal
probability bound” (1 x 10 -150)

136. CYTOCHROME C
Weighs in at 233 bits,
therefore not CSI,
according to Dembski’s
criteria
Cyt-c could have arisen by
chance but it is highly
conserved across groups

137. PROTEIN BINDING SITES
Human splice acceptor sites
contain on average 9.4 bits of
information.
Below 500 bit limit, but clearly
CSI.

138. THE BAD STUFF
Viruses, oncogenes, and “jumping
genes” cause diseases (e.g. ebola, avian
flu, AIDS), cancers and genetic
disruption
All have information content beyond
the 500 bit limit of Dembski.
According to Dembski they must have
been designed.

139. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS

140. IN 65 YEARS OR LESS
bo ut
ea ?
ar ica
r c nol
ne he
sig op
e r
e D chlo
th as
es on
do om
hy ing
W ph
S

142. Who designed the agent?

143. A god worth worshiping?

144. The problem of evil

145. UNIT OF STUDY?
Section of DNA
Gene
Gene family
Functional group of genes
Whole genome
All genomes on Earth
All genomes in Universe?

146. CAN INFORMATION EVOLVE?
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/
paper/ev/

147. Using a starting random
base sequence of 256
bases, and a population
of 64, Schneider’s
program generated
(using random mutation
and natural selection
with no human
intervention) a “CSI”
binding site in 704
generations.

148. INEFFICIENCY
This gain in information required the “death” of 32 organisms in
each of 704 generations, i.e. 22,528 deaths.
This is very inefficient, yet a site with a probability of 1 in
500,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I=68.76 bits) is generated in ~1000
generations
The entire human genome (~4,000,000,000 bits) could evolve in a
billion years
This does not consider sexual recombination or realistic population
size

149. BEATING THE UPB
Schneider looked for the
evolution of 512 bits in a small
(n=512) asexual population of
creatures. He allowed one
mutation per generation.
He defeated the UPB in 15,000
generations

150. LISTEN UP, EVERYONE ...
Living things create
information (“specified
complexity”) via
environmental selection and
random mutations. Living
things and their environment
are the “intelligent designer”

151. REACTION TO DEMBSKI
Biologists … little time for abstractions, especially as no
predictions are made
Mathematicians … little notice
Philosophers … negative due to problems with Explanatory
Filter
Number of papers using Dembski’s methodology?

152. ID AND PEER REVIEW

153. PONDERING ID
“Since its founding in 1996, the [Center for Science and
Culture] has spent 39% of its $9.3 million [i.e. ~ $3.6 million]
on research, Dr. Meyer said, underwriting books or papers, or
often just paying universities to release professors from some
teaching responsibilities so that they can ponder intelligent
design.
New York Times (21 Aug ’05)

154. BRUCE CHAPMAN
“If I were to carry around
Discovery fellows' peer-reviewed
science journal articles on
Darwinian theory and intelligent
design I would need a suitcase,
not a coat pocket.”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11929 (2007)

155. “PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE
JOURNAL ARTICLES”
Meyer in Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington
Behe in Protein Science
Wells in Rivista di Biologia

156. “PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE
JOURNAL ARTICLES”
Meyer in Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington
Behe in Protein Science
Wells in Rivista di Biologia

157. WELLS
A data-free paper whose
hypothesis was quickly
disproven.

158. BEHE
Actually shows
complex systems can
arise through natural
selection even when
the study is “fixed”.

159. MEYER
A review article
that was
demonstrated to be
erroneous in fact
and interpretation
and has been found
to have misused the
peer-review
process.

160. BARAMINOLOGY 1999
Richard Sternberg / Jonathan Wells / Charles Thaxton / Kurt Wise / Paul Nelson / Todd Wood

161. 2002
“I’ve gotten kind of blasé about
submitting things to journals where
you often wait two years to get things
into print. And I find I can actually get
the turnaround faster by writing a
book and getting the ideas expressed
there. My books sell well. I get a
royalty. And the materials gets read
more.”

164. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Behe
2006
Carroll
2007
2008

165. OUTPUT IN FIELD SINCE ’96
Behe (biochemistry) – 4 (2004)
Wells (cell & molecular biology) – 3 (2005)
Nelson (philosophy of biology) – 1 (1996)
Meyer (history & philosophy of science) – 0
Dembski (mathematics) – 0

166. RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski,
Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction
from a Hamming Oracle,” Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting
of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, 2010, pp.
290-297.
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II,
"Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital
Organism," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2009, pp.
3047-3053.
William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s
Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of
Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 2009, pp. 2647-2652.

167. BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE
Douglas Axe (Chemical engineering)
Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow (Invertebrate immunology)
Ann Gauger (Developmental biology)
Guillermo Gonzalez (Astronomy)
David Keller (Chemistry)
Robert J Marks II (Electrical engineering)
Richard von Sternberg (Molecular evolution)
Brendan Dixon (Programmer, ex-Microsoft)

168. BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE
Douglas Axe (Chemical engineering)
Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow (Invertebrate immunology)
Ann Gauger (Developmental biology)
Guillermo Gonzalez (Astronomy)
David Keller (Chemistry)
Robert J Marks II (Electrical engineering)
$700,000 donation to the
Richard von Sternberg (Molecular evolution) Center for Science and Culture
Brendan Dixon (Programmer, ex-Microsoft) $30,000 donation to Marks to employ
Dembski as a post-doc at Baylor.

169. PUBLICATIONS SINCE 2006
Gonzalez
Marks
Axe
Sternberg
D'Andrea

170. BOSTON MEETING 2007
Meyer, Behe, Dembski, Minnich, Nelson, Wells
Doug Axe - "The Language of Proteins - Revisiting a Classic
Metaphor with the Benefit of New Technology.”
Richard von Sternberg - "Genomes, Formal Causes and Taxa.”
Robert Marks - "The Need for Active Information in Evolutionary
Search.”
Ann Gauger - "Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an
experimental test.”

171. DAN BROOKS
“[Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale
us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to
a second presentation, during which she discussed ‘leaky growth’ in
microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of
genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she
had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced
colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, ‘So, a beneficial mutation
happened right in your lab?’ at which point the moderator halted
questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission
hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce
new information, they could produce beneficial new information.”

172. Rule by scientific experts over democracy
Utopianism
• Creation of “heaven on earth”
Dehumanization
• Nazism / Stalinism / Communism
Relativism
• “evolving standards in politics and morality”
Censorship

173. JONATHAN WELLS
“[Critics] articles are rejected by
mainstream journals whose editorial
boards are dominated by the dogmatists;
the critics are denied funding by
government agencies, who send grant
proposals to the dogmatists for ‘peer’
review;
and eventually the critics are hounded out
of the scientific community” [Icons, 235]

174. EVIDENCE?
Unfairly rejected papers?
Unfairly rejected grant
applications?
Denial of tenure because of
support for ID?