I realize that some will find the topic of probability and intelligent design somewhat difficult or less than useful in every day conversation and evangelism. But I think it is important for those interested in apologetics and defending the Christian faith in a culture that values and aims at certainty to be informed of the basic arguments for intelligent design from probability. Often we consider the odds. We ask, how confident can I be given the available information? How likely is it that this event will happen again in the future? How likely is it that this fire was started by an accident? So we ask the same question of ourselves and the universe. How likely by chance alone? We are so unlikely that we need an explanation beyond chance. This is the basic premise of the paper I share below.
Probability & Intelligent Design
by
Rob Lewis
17xxxxx
Submitted to Dr. John Bloom
Intelligent Design
BIOLA University-Apologetics/Science and Religion Program
Date
12-20-18
Abstract
Probability provides a mathematically based predictive or explanatory power, which is used all throughout science and philosophy. It is also a theme found throughout intelligent design arguments. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that in several major scientific and philosophical areas of relevance, intelligent design is supported by probability in that chance alone cannot account for the highly improbable order and complexity found in nature and therefore intelligent design is a superior alternative.
I. Probability
When one considers the likelihood of an event taking place, they are thinking about probability. This paper will explore how probability in three distinct cases (one in philosophy, two in science) show that intelligent design is a rational alternative to physical naturalism. The three cases include both conditional probability considering material naturalism, and mathematical probability considering biological information and natural laws. The question will be whether or not intelligent design finds support as an alternative theory to blind chance found in a critical analysis of material naturalism using probability. In layman’s terms, probability is the mathematical description of chance. That is, given the total possible outcomes that could take place, what percentage of the time should you expect a certain outcome to take place. This can be represented as a fraction, decimal or a percentage such as ½ or .5, which is also 50%.
In the same line of thought using a different representation, one could also refer to the odds of an event or outcome. For example, if there were six total possible outcomes, one is the desired outcome and five are undesired outcomes; then the odds in favor of the desired outcome would be 1:5. The fraction would be 1/6, representing a 16.6% chance of the favored outcome being actualized. The odds have it that the undesired outcome is five times more likely than the desired outcome represented as 5:1, or 5/6, or 83.3%, which is also logically equal to 16.6% . In philosophy, probability can be conditional as well, and is less concerned with mathematics and more with logic. For example, given a set of propositions, a certain conclusion or outcome can have a low conditional probability in light of the propositions. This would be the case in the event where an individual has normally functioning cognitive faculties and is in good health, there would be a low probability that they would suddenly forget who they are, given no sudden traumatic event takes place such as an accident, stoke, or other medical event. In this case the propositions are considered in determining the probability rather than a complete inventory of all possible outcomes as in the case of strict mathematical probability.
With this in mind, probability is used to describe how likely a particular outcome is given the possible outcomes, which is useful in philosophy, statistics, and applied sciences such as engineering and sociology. The task at hand is to show that probability provides support for intelligent design being a rational alternative to materialistic naturalism. The first case to be explored will be considering conditional probability and material naturalism and whether or not it can be shown that the probability of chance alone is a satisfactory explanation.
II. Conditional Probability & Naturalism
When considering the history of the world and the origin of all of nature, including the origin of humans, there is a predominant modern view that restricts such investigation and conversation to natural causes. This is known as materialistic naturalism, or methodological naturalism when considering the method and limitations of the inquiry. As Erikki Kojonen notes, “Methodological naturalistic science seeks only natural causes to explain for natural history. None of its theories about natural history can include any reference to a supernatural creator or purpose behind life.”[1] The point is that supernatural explanations are excluded, and only natural causes are considered when developing an explanation of natural history. That then means there is no agency to be uncovered, no end in mind and only blind chance producing all of the complexity and diversity found in the universe. For the naturalist, science cannot include supernatural causation. Martin Mahner clearly highlights this point, “I strongly doubt that the ontology of science could be expanded to include supernatural entities, for whatever theoretical and empirical approach would result from this would no longer be science.”[2] It seems clear that the modern limits of science are found in the natural world, and causal explanation cannot be sought in the realm of the supernatural. This in effect, rules out creation and intelligent design as possible explanations. The conclusion then must be that unguided processes left to blind chance is a probable explanation for the diversity and complexity found in the universe.
It then seems fitting to consider the alternative view which argues that the probability of naturalism being the best explanation for the diversity and complexity found in the universe is low. One of the strongest proponents of this alternative view is the world class philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Daniel Dennett and others have responded critically to the proposition that any natural process could be guided by intelligent agency, and that there is no need to propose such agency. Plantinga argues as follows responding to Daniel Dennett’s claim that evolutionary theory is capable of explaining the origin of all the features of the world:
So neither Dennett nor contemporary evolutionary theory shows that possibly, all of the features of the world, including mind, have been produced by unguided natural selection…Or should we instead think (with Dawkins) of all biological possibility as simply a matter of less than astronomical improbability?...It doesn’t follow that life has come to be by way of unguided natural selection, and it doesn’t even follow that it is biologically possible that life has come to be that way.[3]
The argument is that in the worst case, unguided evolutionary processes such as natural selection require astronomical improbabilities, that is, if they are even possible at all given the available evidence. In another place, Plantinga outlines his reasons for guided evolutionary processes being more likely than unguided evolutionary processes using conditional probabilities:
…critics have expressed serious doubts as to whether or not the eye for example, could have come to be by way of unguided natural selection operating on random chance genetic mutation-could have, that is, apart from absolutely stunning improbability…Given the stunning complexity of the living cell with its enormous complication, together with what we know about mutation rates, the age of the earth, population sizes, and the like, it seems reasonable to estimate the P(D/E&U) is exceedingly low, orders of magnitude lower than P(D/E&G).[4]
In these conditional probability statements, D stands for Darwinian processes, E stands for relevant biological evidence, G stands for guided evolution, and U stands for unguided evolution. Therefore, the argument is that the probability of unguided Darwinian processes being able to explain the relevant biological evidence is lower than the probability of the process being guided. Plantinga goes on to focus in on what he calls Darwin’s doubt, which is the probability of reliable cognitive functions arising out of unguided evolutionary chance. Plantinga argues as follows:
But natural selection doesn’t give a fig for true belief just as such…If the supervening content is true, excellent; but if it is false, that’s just as good. Its falsehood in no way interferes with adaptivity of NP properties. We should assume therefore that the probability of that beliefs being true, given N&E and non-reductive logical supervenience, is about .5. But the probability of their faculties being reliable will be low. If you have 100 independent beliefs and the probability of each is .5, the probability of that three fourths of them are true, which is a modest requirement for reliability, will be less than one out of a million. P(R/N&E&LNM), therefore is low.[5]
In this case NP stands for neurophysiological properties, N is naturalism, E is current evolutionary theory, and R is the position that our cognitive faculties are reliable. Plantinga highlights a very important probability related to the reliability of our cognitive faculties if they are indeed the product of natural selection which only selects for adaptability, not truth. The odds are low based on the conditional probability that such an unguided process could produce reliable cognitive faculties, and the resulting cumulative odds are one in a million if this process should be expected to produce true beliefs 75% of the time using a sample of 100 beliefs.
III. Probability & Biological Information
Bradley Walter and Charles Thaxton note the incredibly unlikely odds of building amino acid chains by chance. They show that the probability of getting everything correct in placing just one amino acid would be .0125, and for a functional protein with one hundred active sites, the odds of a proper assembly would be 4.9 x 10^-191. They note that such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.[6] The math on that improbability would produce a decimal point followed by one hundred and ninety zeros before the digits 49. Or a decimal out to one hundred and ninety-one decimal places. For comparison, one in a million would be one in 10^6, or .000001, which is a decimal followed by only five zeros before the one; simply stated there are only six decimal places. Even one in ten billion becomes a very likely probability in light of the improbability of chance producing a functional protein.
Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski argues that there are limits to what can be considered a justified explanation that appeals to chance. A universal probability bound describes the case where probability rules out chance. Dembski proposes a universal probability bound of 10^-150 based on the number of elementary particles, and the duration of the universe until its heat death, which produces a limit of 500 bits of information.[7] This probability bound means that a probability of 1 in 10^150 is statistically improbable. Dembski states, “Accordingly, specified information of complexity greater than 500 bits cannot reasonably be attributed to chance…Biologists by and large do not dispute that chance cannot generate CSI. Most biologists reject pure chance as an adequate explanation of CSI.”[8] The point is that when we encounter complex specified information (CSI) greater than 500 bits long, we can rule out chance. A very real example would be to consider the fact that the first two pages of this paper contains around eight hundred words. Speaking in probabilities, chance can be ruled out as an explanation for the first two pages of this paper. What does this mean for information found in biology? For one, the bacterial flagellum’ CSI far exceeds the 500-bit limit of the universal probability bound.[9]
In biology there are many examples of complex information. One example is the alignment of amino acids in a protein. In his book Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer makes the following comments in light of probability and biological information, “Recall that the probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in 10^164…MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance.”[10] It is important to keep in mind the significantly more modest limit Dembski proposes of 1 in 10^150 compared to that of Lloyd’s 1 in 10^120, where Dembski’s probability bound offers far more possible bit operations. However, the conclusion is that given even the most modest probability bound, complex specified information found in biology exhausts the explanatory power of chance alone. To drive the point home, Dembski refers to the work of Stuart Kaufmann as seen in the quote below where Kaufmann argues that there is not enough time in the life of the universe for certain proteins of a certain length to have been produced by chance. Dembski notes and highlights Kauffmann’s argument as follows:
In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout his book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20^200 or approximately 10^260) …Kauffmann concludes, ‘The known universe has not had enough time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 once.’ To emphasize this point, he notes: ‘It would take at least 10 to the 67th times the current lifetime of the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.’[11]
Simply considering the probability, it begins to look like the complex specified information found in biological life is highly improbable given chance alone, and the improbability is only magnified when the limitation of time is also factored in. As Francis Collins stated, “…150 million years for the assembly of macromolecules into self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred.”[12] As Collins, Dembski, Meyer and others have noted, there is evidence according to probability that a completely unguided natural process is highly unlikely to produce by chance alone the kind of complex specified information found in biological information. If it can be shown that such an event is highly unlikely, so unlikely that it is statistically improbable if not all but impossible, then an alternative explanation is required. This is the argument for intelligent design founded in the improbability of natural process producing CSI, appealing to an intelligent cause is rational and justified, and scientific in that it follows the evidence wherever it might lead.
IV. Probability & Fine-Tuning
The idea that the universe is fine-tuned is not an assertion simply asserted by religiously minded scientists, but is a well-documented and broadly accepted fact of science. The force of the fine-tuning argument (FTA) has led many scientists and philosophers of science to propose theories beyond scientific investigation, such as the multiverse theory. Many like Peter Epstein do not attempt to argue against FTA, but work to propose philosophical solutions for how FTA fits into a natural framework, assuming FTA is true. In Epstein’s case, he argues that FTA points to multiverse theory, and that multiverse (HM) is a better option over a single universe (HU) philosophically speaking, given the reality of FTA.[13] The very fact that philosophers of science are driven to postulate multiverse theory shows that FTA is highly improbable given the physical and temporal limits of our natural universe, we would need to evoke some universe generating mechanism that can produce nearly an infinite number of universes so that at least one universe wins the incredibly improbable lottery. The limits of this paper do not allow for an analysis of multiverse theory, but the fact that multiverse theory is being proposed is evidence of how improbable FTA is considering natural unguided processes left to chance alone.
To show why FTA is so improbable without appealing to something outside of our universe, a few examples are in order. There are over one hundred instances of fine tuning in physics. For the sake of argument and time, only three will be examined along with their probabilities. The first two are related, the gravitational constant (G) and the weak nuclear force (W). William Lane Craig discusses these two examples of FTA. Craig states, “For example, according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, changes in either G or W of only one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.”[14] The third example is the cosmological constant, which is related to the rate at which the universe is expanding. Lane Craig goes on to note, “The cosmological constant is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10^120…Oxford physicists Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen sheerly by chance in the absence any constraining principles is at least as small as about one part in 10^10^(120) in order for our universe to exist.”[15] Astrophysicist Hugh Ross also appreciates the incredible odds of the cosmological constant with a slightly more impressive estimate and incredible comparison, “As Lawrence Krauss and many other astrophysicists noted, this one part in 10^122 is by far the most extreme fine-tuning yet discovered in physics. An analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of the cosmic balance would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports.”[16] It is hard to imagine how improbable one pencil standing upright on a glass surface without any support would be, much less one billion pencils standing upright on their points. These kinds of analogies help one understand why an acceptable explanation for such examples of fine tuning must be sought outside of our physical universe, whether appealing to an intelligent cause, or some multiverse generating machine.
V. Conclusion
Considering the three cases explored in this paper, it seems that probability has provided justification for rational belief in intelligent design. The main point has been to show that purely natural, unguided processes are highly improbable explanations for the kind of complexity found in the physical universe. From conditional probability to mathematical probability considering biological information and cosmological fine-tuning, the explanatory power of materialistic naturalism has been exhausted, which then means an alternative explanation is required. This alternative explanation must transcend the physical universe, and an intelligent designer is not an unreasonable alternative to a multiverse generating machine. As some have argued, if multiverse theory provides scientific explanation, then why doesn’t intelligent design?[17] It is clear that intelligent design finds an advocate in probability, both in philosophy and in hard science.
Works Cited
Bradely, Walter L., and Charles B. Thaxton. "Information & The Origin of Life." In The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 173-210. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Collins, Francis S. "Faith and the Human Genome." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55, no. 3 (2003): 152.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Dembski, William. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.
Epstein, Peter Fisher. "The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Requirement of Total Evidence." Philosophy of Science 84, no. 4 (10 2017): 639-658.
Kojonen, Erikki. "Methodological Naturalism and the Truth Seeking Objection." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81, no. 3 (2017): 335-355.
Kragh, Helge. "Contemporary History of Cosmology and the Controversy over the Multiverse." Annals of Science 66, no. 4 (2009): 529-551.
Mahner, Martin. "The Role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science." Science & Education 21, no. 10 (2012): 1437-1459.
Meyer, Stephen. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: Harper One, 2009.
Plantinga, Alvin. "Science and Religion." In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, 1-23. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
—. Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism . New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Ross, Hugh. the Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God. Covina: rtb Press, 2018.
[1] Kojonen, Erikki. "Methodological Naturalism and the Truth Seeking Objection." International
Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81, no. 3 (2017): 335-355. 340.
[2] Mahner, Martin. "The Role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science." Science & Education 21,
no. 10 (2012): 1437-1459. 1457.
[3] Plantinga, Alvin. Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011. 38-39.
[4] Plantinga, Alvin. "Science and Religion." In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, 1
23. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 13.
[5] Ibid. Plantinga, Alvin. "Science and Religion." 19-20.
[6] Walter L Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton, "Information & The Origin Of Life," in The
Creation Hypothesis: Sceintific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 173-210.
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 190.
[7] Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. 166.
[8] Ibid. Dembski, William A. 1999. 166.
[9] Dembski, William A. 1999. 178.
[10] Meyer, Stephen. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New
York: Harper One, 2009. 217.
[11] Dembski, William. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without
Intelligence . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. 84.
[12] Collins, Francis S. "Faith and the Human Genome." Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith 55, no. 3 (2003): 152.
[13] Epstein, Peter Fisher. "The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Requirement of Total Evidence."
Philosophy of Science 84, no. 4 (10 2017): 639-658. 639.
[14] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2008. 158.
[15] Ibid. Craig, William Lane. 2008. 159.
[16] Ross, Hugh. the Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God.
Covina: rtb Press, 2018. 173.
[17] Kragh, Helge. "Contemporary History of Cosmology and the Controversy over the
Multiverse." Annals of Science 66, no. 4 (2009): 529-551. 545.^