The
Hubris of Intelligent Design
Rev. Paul Beckel
January 29, 2006
Every engineering effort is shaped by,
and in turn shapes,
the culture, politics, and times in which
it is embedded. Henry Petroski
No one wants to learn by mistakes,
but we cannot learn enough from successes
to go beyond the state of the art. Henry
Petroski
Good judgment is usually the result of
experience. And experience is frequently the result of bad judgment. But to
learn from the experience of others requires those who have the experience to
share the knowledge with those who follow. Barry LePatner
The requirements for design conflict and
cannot be reconciled. All designs...are in some degree failures, either because
they flout one or another of the requirements or because they are compromises,
and compromise implies a degree of failure. Failure is inherent in all useful
design...because all requirements of economy derive from insatiable wishes....
It follows that all designs for use are arbitrary. The designer or his client
has to choose in what degree and where there shall be failure.... if you vary
the terms of your compromise—say, more speed, more heat, less safety, more
discomfort, lower first cost—then you vary the shape of the thing designed. It
is quite impossible for any design to be “the logical outcome of the
requirements” simply because, the requirements being in conflict, their logical
outcome is an impossibility.
David Pye
The
But
it’s not laughable when sectarian religion threatens to undermine science
education in the name of teaching “a diversity of competing theories.” It
tangles us free speech advocates in rhetorical knots. Happily the courts have
found once again that creationism in any disguise does not belong in the public
school science curriculum.
Now
that that’s settled, what’s left to say about “Intelligent Design?” Quite a
bit, actually. And getting the very tangible public policy issue out of the way
(for now) might make it a little easier to open ourselves to some theological
speculation on the topic.
Design.
Could the nature of “design” point us toward an understanding of the nature of
the divine? I think it may. So today we turn to engineering – a rich source of
insight located at the crossroads of science and art, blending lofty theory
with humbling real-life application. Yes, if we’d like to know about intelligent design, what better source
of first-hand experience and hard-won wisdom could there be than those who design? In fact, engineers and
architects may point us not only toward a better understanding of god, but
toward a better understanding of the possibilities and responsibilities of
human freedom.
And after the service today, the Building Scope Task Force
has asked Dan Helwig of Design Unlimited to present updated drawings and answer
questions regarding our building renovation. We’ll meet in the sanctuary a few
minutes after the service.
How many of you like to write/type? How
many of you are familiar with Shakespeare? (Poet, playwright....) Do you think
you could write like Shakespeare? You never know. It’s been said that an
infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters would
eventually re-create all the poetry and plays of Shakespeare. How many of you
are descended from monkeys?
Maybe you could help me do an experiment.
Even though we probably don’t have time today for an infinite number of
repetitions.... Let’s check something out. The theory of natural selection
states that some creatures are more likely than others to pass on their genes
to succeeding generations. My hypothesis is that I would be more likely to pass
on my genes if I had a better haircut.
If that thing about monkeys is true, then
an infinite number of monkeys giving me an infinite number of haircuts would
eventually make me look like Brad Pitt.... Let’s find out.
[At this point I passed out a dozen
pair of scissors and urged the kids to cut my hair. I was dismayed that they
wouldn’t do it!]
Each opportunity to design something
new... presents... choices that may appear countless. The engineer may decide
to copy... good features from existing designs that have successfully withstood
the forces of man and nature, but he may also decide to improve upon those
aspects of prior designs that appear to be wanting....
The choices of design are ultimately like
the choices of life. While the engineer can pursue on paper...many different
designs that fulfill the requirements of a [project]...only one design can be
chosen to be built, just as...only one route can be taken on a single trip from
Deciding which paper design will be cast
in concrete presents the designer or the selection committee with a problem not
unlike that faced by Robert Frost:
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
MUSICAL
MEDITATION
The
concept of “Intelligent Design” includes an assumption that a conscious and well-meaning creator put
all-this together. I’d like to describe some alternative ways of looking at
creation, meaning, purpose, and all-this. I’m not going to try to squash the
concept of a conscious and well-meaning creator. After all, this is not science
and not disprovable. I’m simply going to explain that many of us who describe
ourselves as humanist, atheist, or agnostic... or theist but with a naturalistic theology or a process theology ...how it is that many
of us live without faith in a well-meaning creator capable of putting his or
her or its intentions into practice... but lacking this particular faith does
not mean that we lead empty lives devoid of meaning.
***
What
is our purpose in life? And where does that purpose come from? When bad things
happen, do they happen for a reason? Does the universe itself have an
intention, a “why?”, a goal toward
which we are being carried?
Yes
and no.
I
mean, “yes” – there is meaning and purpose in life to the extent that we
recognize meaning and purpose.
And
I mean, “no” – there does not need to be some single external original
consciousness that created all meaning and purpose. Maybe there is, maybe there
isn’t, but I have no experience with
any force – either within or outside of
nature – which consciously wills
for things to happen as they do.
I’ll
say now, for the last time today, that I’m speaking about my personal theology.
I don’t know, I cannot verify empirically, that the traditional Western
notions of God – a power both conscious and capable – I cannot demonstrate that
these notions are false. So whatever your
theology, you are welcome here. Whatever
your theology, I hope that you will express yourself openly here. My
theology is probably different from that of anyone in this room, but our
differences do not need to interfere with our sense of mutual respect.
***
So,
why are we here? That depends on what
the definition of “Why” is. A great kids book from the 1950’s is called, A
Hole is to Dig [by Ruth Krauss]. It contains such simultaneously
mundane and profound observations as: “A hole is to dig.... a face is so you
can make faces.... dishes are to do.... grass is to cut.... a door is to
open.... a door is to shut....
The
world is so you have something to stand on....
The
point, I think, is that the question, “Why?” can be answered a lot of different
ways. When asked “Why am I here?” I could talk about how I got here physically.
Or, what I’m intending to do right now. Or, I could speculate as to some larger
cosmic purpose for my being.
And
even though I don’t believe that my being here, now, was intended and
predetermined – neither by god nor by fate nor even by natural law, I still
believe my life has purpose. I can quote Annie Dillard with complete sincerity:
"We
are here to abet creation and to witness to it.... To notice each other’s
beautiful face and complex nature.... So that creation need not play to an
empty house."
With or without belief in a cosmic
consciousness, I can sing praises to the wonders of creation in the words of
Evi Seidman:
“It’s
a good thing I’m not in charge here. I could never have thought of a pine cone
or a pomegranate or a porcupine. And even if I’d thought of one, how on earth
would I have engineered a comet or organized life in a pond?”
These songs of praise are beautiful in
themselves. And they are all the more beautiful in that a traditional theist, and someone who resonates with process
theology, and someone who rejects the
notion of God altogether... might all affirm and find meaning in these love
songs directed toward the unfathomable wonders of creation.
In brief: Process theology is a view of
the divine as unfinished. There are many variations on this theme but
essentially they are understandings of a higher power which is in-process,
unfolding, emerging, becoming further revealed... in every moment... in relation to a changing creation.
***
I find meaning in process theology
because I have observed parallel patterns in biology, in human history, and in
the history of my own consciousness.
Here’s one of the patterns: Every day I
make choices based upon my values. And over time, these choices become my values. So, which came first,
the chicken... I mean the choices...or the values? What I choose and do is
inseparable from what I believe or who I am. This is the case for any
individual, any organization, any nation...and for human history as a whole.
Beliefs and actions are chickens and
eggs. There’s no point in trying to determine which came first. And, there are
limits to how much we can predict or control regarding what will be born of our
beliefs and actions...several generations down the line.
So we have this and only this: our own
moment in history. This day of choices. This day of compromises to be made
among competing values. All day today we will be compromising – juggling our
safety, our economy, and style. We will engineer, we will design our own
unfolding lives. And -- as it is with every design project – we will face
limits. We won’t start today from scratch. We won’t choose from among infinite
resources. Our life projects may not defy the laws of nature. So we will choose
– we have free will – but there’s a limited scope within which we will choose.
Our scope will be limited in part by nature.
Our scope will be limited in part by what other people have chosen. And our
scope will be limited in part by what we
have chosen before.
But still, we will choose. And as we do,
we will find ourselves designing and assembling, re-designing and re-assembling
our own lives...and the lives of others...and life on this planet.
How incredibly presumptuous we will be:
to re-assemble nature. To play God. But it’s unavoidable. With every medical
decision, we intervene in the trajectory of the cosmos. When we eat, or
exercise, or procreate, or teach, we affect the outcome of the world around us.
At least for a while.
How presumptuous of us to make these
calculations – sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously! Calculations
about the value of human life – whether
we sell insurance or buy insurance we’re making these calculations.
And we “evaluate” time – what is it worth
to “save time”? Every moment we’re
bartering – comparing and exchanging one thing of value for another. Style,
comfort, safety, convenience, longevity, tradition, our individual preferences
vs. the “needs” of our families or society. What is each of these worth? We
only know by how much of something else we’ll trade.
How presumptuous to have any values
whatsoever! Yet we are condemned to responsibility as surely as we are
inalienably free.
Exhausting – and invigorating – isn’t it?
***
Engineers do not have inherently better
values than the rest of us. But they are very very good at pointing out where
choices need to be made. Since they cannot create any thing or any process
which will completely satisfy all of our competing values, they point out the
various links in the web, so that we can make informed choices about which link
we will allow to be the weakest.
A simple example is our shoestrings. If
we were willing to sacrifice more money, comfort, and convenience, we could buy
woven steel shoestrings or some other contraption which would never break.
Well, of course, it would eventually break, but maybe not for several generations.
But we compromise on relatively sturdy, relatively inexpensive, relatively
attractive, relatively convenient means for keeping our shoes on our feet.
Which part will we allow to be our
weakest link? Whether in our machines, our homes, our bodies, or our morning
rituals, we accept the risk of failure and we make compromises.
Where we wish for less risk, we create
redundancy – back up systems. We can live with nylon shoestrings because the
consequences of breakage are relatively minor. The consequences of running out
of toilet paper at the wrong time, however, are more severe. Still, we can live
with a toilet paper roll that’s only a few inches thick because it’s easy to
keep another roll close at hand.
Some of us keep one roll close at hand.
Some of us keep 24 rolls close at hand. Consciously or unconsciously we choose
our weakest links.
Our most intelligent choices are made
when we know our limits and, where possible, we create backup plans, and where
we keep a number of diverse options open so that when one plan fails there are
others at hand that may adapt well to the changing situation.
Long-lasting highways and buildings and
widgets and operational systems have alternate
load paths. On the World Wide Web, if one traffic path is busy, the little
bits of information making their way to our computers will jump off to another
path... take a short cut through
Effective auto traffic management is
similar; as is the management of the guests at your party, or the weight on
your sore knee. In a good system, when one supportive member temporarily fails,
another member picks up the burden. And in this way catastrophic failure is
avoided.
For a while.
From this perspective, then, failure can
be a good thing. That is, if our systems are flexible and diverse enough, minor
failures can help us to spot a weak link before the whole system collapses.
Of course, there are limits to how much
backup you can have in any system before the backup itself gets unwieldy, and
counterproductive. There are limits to how strong you can make something before
it gets rigid.
Politics, ethics, business management,
parenting, any relationship, even spirituality: all involve making intelligent
compromises between too much structure and support... and not enough.
***
Cracks. Cracks in a structure or system
are not always cause for immediate alarm. But cracks left unaddressed will
eventually lead to failure as tiny cracks coalesce into larger ones, as
weaknesses or excessive loads continue, or as we overcompensate in one area...
to the point that even an ordinary load is unbearable.
To be safe, since the equipment to detect
cracks has limited sensitivity, it must be assumed that there are cracks in
everything. In our tires, airplanes, nuclear power plants and missile defense
shields. There must be cracks in our lives.
We can respond to this reality with
denial and hubris – overconfidence which leads to catastrophic failure. Or, we
can respond intelligently and conservatively.
An intelligent, prudent, conservative
response to cracks and weakest links is to inspect regularly (our physical
stuff as well as our intangible internal stuff.) We can perform maintenance
procedures regularly. We can overdesign – that is, we can always plan with a
margin of error. And we can prepare for the worst case scenario.
Of course, even when we do all of these
things, there are no guarantees.
***
The transition in engineering from slide
rule to calculator to personal computer has been a risky one. In the days of
the slide rule, a person had to know if the answer they came up with was
reasonable. If it was within the range of possibility. One risk with
calculators and computers is that we get answers to such incredible precision
that we may be fooled into assuming the answers are accurate.
These kinds of ungrounded calculations
can give us false sense of security. We can slip into unsafe assumptions and
dangerously lower our margins for safety.
The computer has done wonders for design
in that it enables us to see where we have been overdesigning. In earlier days
of engineering, for example, things would be made excessively strong and heavy
and expensive... things that today’s engineers can more easily optimize and
pare down to their essentials.
The danger is that computers can help us
to find the lightest, cheapest, fastest ways to build, but they don’t (yet)
have the essential human trait of suspicion.
We still need human engineers, human
observers, human decision-makers to consider how a structure or a system
might fail. Because (at least so far) only humans can choose how the
structure will be used and see what forces will be acting upon it.
This is why experience is so essential.
Hubris is overconfidence which leads to
catastrophic failure. We saw some engineering hubris earlier this month in the
collapse of a German skating rink...and in the collapse of a coal mine, and in
the fire in another coal mine. We see plenty of hubris in religion, manifest in violent suppression of
spiritual expression. There is hubris in math & science manifest in the
lack of understanding about the limits of pure reason; and a growing hubris in
ignorance – that is, an astonishing pride in anti-intellectualism, and mistrust
of those with experience.
***
All failures are ultimately failures of
design – even if the more immediate cause of failure is poor construction, or
poor maintenance, or natural disaster. In all cases it is the designer’s
responsibility to anticipate and design to prevent failure or to get the
product off the market before failure occurs.
The hubris of the “Intelligent Design”
movement is that it assumes a once-and-for-all answer to all future questions.
It requires it’s adherents to abdicate responsibility, give up making observations
and judgments. No matter how contradictory the evidence, the answer is always
the same. “Because the good Lord made it that way.”
Dan Helwig’s firm is called Design
Unlimited. Who is he trying to kid? Neither he nor his firm are unlimited. The
contract we will sign with him makes it very clear – and appropriately so –
that there are limits to his
responsibility. So if, as I said a moment ago, if the designer is ultimately
responsible for everything, and Dan is not ultimately responsible for
everything...then who is the designer?
I doubt that the designer is a conscious
and well-meaning creator. If that were the case, then we would have to blame
God for everything that happens. As handy as that may be, it doesn’t contribute
much to motivate us toward making responsible, intelligent choices.
So, what if it’s us? What if we are the designers? Or, what if we’re really in
partnership with Dan... and in partnership with the universe? It may sound audacious, it may sound
presumptuous, and it may be inescapable.
CLOSING
HYMN #131 Love will Guide Us
A
hole is to dig.... a lap is so you don’t get crumbs on the floor.... mashed
potatoes are to give everybody enough.... hands are to hold.... hands are to
make things.... a hole is to plant a flower....