title

Questions about

 Complexity in Nature and

Design in Science

by Craig Rusbult November 29, 2005

Chaos & Complex Systems Seminar

GOALS

my goal: to share ideas,for ACCURATE UNDERSTANDINGand RESPECTFUL ATTITUDES

an approach learned from my high school civics teacher,who taught with logical lectures & exciting debates:Monday — he convinced us that "his view" was correct,Tuesday — he ...

MY TEACHER

after awhile, we learned:

ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING — to get this, we should get the best information and arguments that each view claims as support.

RESPECTFUL ATTITUDES — usually this was one result of ourimproved understanding, because we recognized that usuallyeven when we have good reasons for preferring one view,other people may also have good reasons — both intellectual and ethical — for their views.

But respect does not require agreement.We can respect, yet criticize, and we should evaluate based on evidence, logic, and values.The intention of our teacher, and the conclusion of his students, was not radical postmodern relativism, it was RESPECTFUL CRITICAL THINKING based on ACCURATE UNDERSTANDINGS.

part 1

Part 1

Complexity in Nature

1A

1A

Specified Complexityand  

Design during History 

PRIME-NUMBER SIGNAL

Imagine that we observe a radio signalcontaining a long string of prime numbers  ( 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,..., 211, 223,... ) 

Scientific Inference to Best Explanationwill lead rational scientists to propose a

causal theory of Design-Directed Action

William Dembski proposes a criterion to detect design: the signal contains Complex Specified Information, is complex because string is long (2 thru 223, not 2 3 5),

specified because it matches a pattern (prime numbers).

{ note: does "complexity" (in this talk) = chaos-complexity? }

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

• How?• Usually when an "inference to the best explanation"

leads to a conclusion that "design-directed actionis the most probable cause" this claim is based onThe Logic of Mutually Exclusive Possibilitiesbecause a feature must be produced by eitherNON-DESIGN (by UNDIRECTED natural process)or DESIGN (by DESIGN-DIRECTED action).

• For the signal, can you think of another possibility —that isn't undirected natural process or design-action?

BAR GRAPH (SUM = 100%)

IF undirected natural process (UNP) is improbable, intelligent design-directed action (ID) is probable.

sum of NON-DESIGN (UNP) + DESIGN (ID) = 100%

10 30 50 70 90  90 70 50 30 10

IS IT LOGICAL ?

Can a design inference be justified by evidence-and-logic?

scientific difficulty & controversy are in estimating status:How do we decide if non-design is 90%, 50%, or 10% ?

PROOF is impossible (in all science) and is not claimed.

But the logical foundation (mutual exclusion) seems solid:It seems correct to claim that a feature was produced by NONDESIGN (by UNDIRECTED natural process)or DESIGN (by DESIGN-DIRECTED action).

other possibilities? — ontology (what is and occurs)   epistemology (what we know)

other situations

other situations in human history where the best logical inference would be design-action:

• faces on Mt Rushmore (undirected erosion or design-action?)

• What if we find a diesel bulldozer on the moon? (Del Ratzsch)

• Is "complexity" required? if perfect cube made of pure gold?Is it complex? (no?) Was it a result of design-action? (yes)

situations in the history of naturewhere the best logical inference might be design-action:

• the origin of the first carbon-based life on earth (in 1D)

• the origin of some types of biological complexity (in 1E)

There are similarities and differences between these situations,leading to "would be" versus "might be" differences in the logic.

TWO TYPES OF DESIGN

What is the common meaning of a design theory?Usually, a theory of Intelligent Design claimsthat a particular feature was produced byempirically detectabledesign-directed actionDURING HISTORY. 

But there is another type of design theoryand we'll look at this design-claim in Part 1B.

1B - title

1B

Natural Complexityand

Design of Nature

INTRO-OVERVIEW

We're made from Stardust

Formation of Stars & Complex Nucleirequires Fine-Tuning for Laws of Nature

this is generally accepted by scientists,but they have proposed

Two Explanations:  INTELLIGENT DESIGN of nature  MULTIVERSE to "beat the odds" 

SUNSHINE & BALANCE

Sunshine and Balance:

Sunshinewarms our bodies,

grows our food,and lets us see.

But why do we have sunshine?

SUMMARY OF 1B

Cosmic Tug-of-War (gravity pulls in, nuclear pushes out),and in some stars this produces complex nuclei,including the atoms (carbon,…) in our bodies.

FINE TUNING (e = mc2, mass, rates, forces,…) required,imagine dozens of radio dials that must be set correctlyto produce a universe that is "just right" for life.

Scientists agree about fine tuning, offer two explanations:INTELLIGENT DESIGN of nature so it will support life,MULTIVERSE with many universes, to "beat the odds" (if enough worlds then everything will happen, including us)

Multiverse Speculations — how? strings, branes, inflation, QM, … Scientific Evidence — indirect (strings,…) & direct (we haven't observed

other universes, but "so what" since far away or different space-time;data limitations about what happened before Big Bang Beginning.

Occam's Razor? is about Structure of Theory, not Results of Theory.

royal flush

an example: With 5-card deals, what are the odds ofgetting a royal flush (A K Q J 10, same suit)?in one hand, odds are 1 in 649,740 againstin 450,365 deals, it's 50-50 (even money)if 10x (4,503,650), 1023-to-1 in favorif 20x (9 million), million-to-1 in favorif 40x (18 million), trillion-to-1 in favorexponential increase? x 2 x billion

note: I'll want to re-check these (10x,…) later.

AND-OR

Intelligent Design and/or Multiversethese two theories are not mutually exclusive:

Would a multiverse have to be designed? (elegant universe-making mechanism)Would a Grand Unified Theory be designed? (elegant fine-tuned coherent unity of laws)

Anthropic Principle ( "so what ?" )

Because humans exist, we must observea universe consistent with our existence.

This is logically valid, and is compatible withthe presence or absence of a designer,so it doesn't favor design or nondesign.

NO PROOF

When we consider a design of nature,can we prove design or non-design?

Currently, the certainty of proof seems impossible, and this is OK.

In fact, I think it's how God wants it to be,with enough evidence to believe or disbelieve,so we must decide based partly on heart and will(choosing a worldview consistent with what we want)and LIVE BY FAITH, no matter what our worldview is,since none of us can be certain our worldview is true.

Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning:Intelligent Design and/or Multiverse?

TWO TYPES OF DESIGN

Two Types of Design (that can be claimed)

1A: Design-Directed Action during History (direct) (to make radio signal with prime numbers)

1B: Design of Nature in The Universe (indirect) (so undirected natural process makes stardust)

Design-Directed Action by Robin, writing poetry.

Indirect Design-Action by Clint, writing programto make mini-world that "naturally" produces art.

Images of a Complex World: The Art & Poetry of Chaos

Soon, possibilities for design-action in history of nature:

the origin of carbon-based life on earth (1D),

the origins of biological complexities (1E ).

1C

1C

Natural Complexity:Entropy and Evolution

HENRY MORRIS

• Evolution and Entropy — Is complexity un-natural?

• A claim by Henry Morris, prominent young-earth creationist:"evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusiveconcepts,... [so] evolution must be impossible" and "the mostdevastating and conclusive argument against evolution [of anytype — astronomical, chemical, or biological] is the entropyprinciple,... also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics,...which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order."

• the argument: a. If evolution occurs, complexity increases;b. The Second Law says complexity cannot increase;c. therefore, evolution cannot occur.

WHY THINGS HAPPEN

• Why do things happen?• attractive forces bring things together, freedom constrained,

apparent "complexity" increases; in astronomical evolution,for example, • protons + electrons H-atoms & molecules(due to electrical), • form protostars (due to gravity) and then• complex nuclei (due to nuclear), supernovas scatter atoms,• solar systems (due to gravity) — all increase the complexity;this is OK with Second Law if kinetic energy (and T) increases.

• YEC: entropy increase (Second Law) = complexity decrease,science: entropy = number of ways energy can be distributed, so if there is more energy there are more ways, and                  this is usual reason for entropy increase in chemistry.

Entropy, Evolution, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics

1D

1D

Minimal Complexityfor the Simplest Life

OVERVIEW of 1D

The Simplest Living Organism is Extremely ComplexWhat is Minimal Complexity for Carbon-Based Life?current estimate: requires hundreds of biomolecules

Origin of Life by Undirected Natural Process?maybe by Chemical Evolution in three stages:1a — formation of small organic molecules,1b — combine to form larger biomolecules, 2 — self-organization into living organism.

Basically, scientists are learning that the complexity required for lifeseems to be much greater thanthe complexity possible by natural process.

Compared with bio-E steps, nonlife life is huge, and it would have to occur without natural selection.

scientific difficulties

some scientific difficulties for chemical evolution:

1a — in 1953, Miller-Urey experiments used extremely reactive reducing atmosphere (H2O plus reactive NH3 and H2 & CH4 which are reactants of explosion; later, scientists determined that most-probable early atmosphere (inert N2, and stable H2O & CO2 which are products of explosion) was actually very unreactive.

1b — aqueous equilibria are in the wrong directions for "amino acids polypeptides" and formation of nucleic acids (RNA, DNA) and other biomolecules.

2 — simplest living organism requires 300 biomolecules?   (this seems to be the most difficult "set of steps")

more about the scientific difficulties for Chemical Evolution

creative theories

The big difference (between what's required and what's possible) has motivated scientists to stretch their imaginations, to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities:

• RNA World (to solve chicken-and-egg problem, withproteins requiring DNA and vice versa, if RNA does all)

• pre-RNA World, with key roles by other molecules (thioesthers,...)

• other sources of metabolic energy (easier to use for simple systems)

• different environments: instead of organic soup in ocean, maybe life began in semi-evaporated pond or sandy beach, or seafloor thermal vent, on the surface of clay-like mineral or weathered feldspar, on another planet,...

• or first life may have been different, was not like carbon-based life on earth

• searching for ways to reduce minimal complexity required for living system

• developing principles for prebiological selection of molecules (analogous to biological selection of genes in living organisms)

• exploring the self-organizing properties of complex chemical systems interacting to produce systemic auto-catalysis and mutual reproductions, with sudden appearance of emergent properties for the complex system

So far, no Chem-E theories have progressed from speculation to plausibility. 

1D

1E

Irreducible Complexityand Natural Selection

CUMULATIVE & IRREDUCIBLE

Cumulative Complexity by Natural Selection? ( yes )

For example, imagine this history for a complex 20-part system: 1-2 combination has function (so is favored by natural selection)1-2-3 is better (so it's selected for), and also 1-2-3-4, and so onthrough 1-2-3-4…17-18-19-20 so the system can be producedin a step-by-step process of natural neo-Darwinian evolution.

Irreducible Complexity by Natural Selection? ( ? )

Imagine a 7-part system ABCDEFG (not in historical sequence) with no function in each 6-part combination: BCDEFG (missing A),ACDEFG (missing B), ... , ABCDEF (missing G) are non-functional so none would be "selected for" to produce the observed complexity.

BEHE & DARWIN

Charles Darwin — Origin of Species (6th edn, 1872) — "If it couldbe demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could notpossibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slightmodifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Michael Behe — Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challengeto Evolution (1996) — claimed that interdependencies betweenparts might make a system that could not be "reduced" withoutlosing its function, because all parts are needed for the function.

Does such an organ (or biochemical system) exist?  Is the complexity of a biosystem cumulative or irreducible?

If it's cumulative, how many mutations, how long, how probable?

If it's irreducible, how complex?  how difficult to evolve by selection?

How have science journals responded to the questions of Michael Behe?

QUESTIONS

irreducibly complex systems differ in complexity andestimated difficulty of evolution; Behe makes claimsfor only some systems, so we should focus on these;

showing evolution of simpler systems (or those that are cumulatively complex) is not relevant or impressive.

Behe's challenge has stimulated creative thinking andconstruction of scenarios for a step-by-step evolution(of systems claimed to be irreducibly complex) by anindirect path with a coevolution of structure & function,or the simplification (by eliminating redundant parts) ofa cumulatively complex system developed by evolution,analogous to the use of a "scaffold" in building an arch.

Most biologists think non-design explanations are plausible.

• What is the evidence for coevolution or scaffolding?What are the steps, and how large is each step?Is it possible in principle?  plausible in reality?Did it probably occur in the history of nature?

MANY MEANINGS

Is evolution supported by scientific evidence-and-logic?This is a "trick question" because to answer we must ask:Which of the many meanings of evolution is intended?

Behe accepts most meanings (old-earth fossil progressions) and full common descent, plus micro-E & minor macro-E)so evidence for these should be greeted with "so what?"because they are irrelevant for distinguishing betweenhis design theory and neo-Darwinian Total Macro-E.

A scientific defense of neo-Darwinian evolution requires good answers for tough questions, without a "transfer ofsupport" from a strongly supported meaning of evolution(like old-earth fossil progressions, common descent, orminor macro-E) to a more weakly supported meaning(as in questions about irreducibly complex systems),as explained in Logical Evaluations of Evolutions.

Maybe there are good answers to the tough questions, butasking them should be allowed / encouraged in science.

Part 2 — Design in Science

Part 2

Design in Science

ID & SCI METHOD

Can a design theory be scientific?

Can we scientifically evaluate a Design Theory(claiming Design of Nature or Design in History)based on evidence-and-logic? other factors?

Scientific MethodThis is one of my favorite topics. The foundation of my Ph.D. dissertation was a unifying synthesis of ideas (mainly from scientists and philosophers, but also from sociologists, psychologists, historians, and myself) in a coherently integrated model of scientific method, including this visual representation:

ISM DIAGRAM

OPERATIONAL & HISTORICAL

historical sciences: geology, astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, forensics, ... ; most areas of science includesome history, or can be used for history (e.g., genetics in E-bio)

historical science — to study history of nature, happened in past.

operations science — to study current operation, happening now.

These are similar in most important ways, but differ in minor ways. 

Can historical science produce reliable conclusions?   YESWill historical science produce reliable conclusions?   MAYBEIt depends. We should look at a particular situation-and-claim,and try to estimate a level of justifiable confidence in the claim.

DATA LIMITATIONS

Data Limitations (re: experiments) in Historical Sciences:usually experiments are not-controlled & not-repeatable;but scientists have developed methods to cope with limitations.

theory-based inferences (if-then: if theory, then observation)are usually called pre-dictions, implying that an inferencemust be made before observation. But inference-logic issame for prediction (with inference before observation)and retroduction (with inference after observation).

HISTORICAL THEORIES can bedescriptive (re: WHAT happened?) orexplanatory (re: HOW did it happen?)

historians try to describe/explain what DID happen, we don't expect them to predict what WILL happen.

UNOBSERVABLES

entities, actions, and events can be unobservable because they are inherently unobservable (electrons) orbecause events happened in the past. In either case (andfor either operation or history) scientists can logically inferthe existence-and-actions of things they cannot observe,IF an unobservable cause produces observable effects.

two examples:In contrast with positivists of early 1900s, who challengedatomic theory [atoms??] and cognitive psychology [thinking??],science proposes atoms and thoughts due to what we observe.

Historical Science and Scientific Methods 

EVOLUTION THEORIES

Can evolutionary theory be scientific?

YES, despite methodological objections aboutobservations, predictions, and falsification:• major macro-E can't be directly observed,• E-theory doesn't make predictions,• E-theory cannot be falsified.

Each objection can be answered.(although scientists aren't eager to falsify)  

These were important questions for Darwinbecause E-theory was not like physics-theory,which was the model to define Scientific Method.

DESIGN THEORY (STAGES)

• Can a design theory be scientific?YES, for many of the same reasons as for evolution, but there are additional methodological demands.For example,

• For any question about design, in any area,scientific inquiry is a two-stage process:

• 1) ask "Was there design-directed action?"

• 2) investigate details: how, who, when, why, ...

• A basic design theory claims only #1 but not #2, and should be evaluated for what it does claim, #1.

• undirected natural process mechanistic explanatory theory,• design-directed action by agent agency explanatory theory,but critics of design demand that ID must propose a mechanism,even though this demand is unreasonable because it rejects thefirst stage (claiming design did occur) because of second stage.

SCIENCE STOPPER

a question: design theory says "we're not interested in the details" (that are a common focus of science) so we ask

Is a claim for design a science-stopper? No, thisis a simplistic either-or "slippery slope" argument.Most scientists will continue non-design research,maybe with renewed vigor in responding to challenge.ID can stimulate action, critical thinking and debate; thegoal is to supplement (not replace) nondesign research.

Design in Science: What difference would it make?For the productivity of science, very little difference;for the philosophy of science, it could be interesting.

Can a theory of design be scientific?

EMPIRICALLY RESPONSIVE

HOW can a design theory be scientific?

Think about a "prime-numbers radio signal"with Inference to the Best Explanation

by using The Logic of Mutual Exclusion:If it couldn't be Undirected Natural Process,then it was due to Design-Directed Action.

We can also think about this in terms ofObservable Signs of Design, things thatdesign-action does but non-design doesn't.

DESIGN is empirically responsive (and testable)because evidence-and-logic can change its status:

PROOF & CONFIDENCE

Can design be proved?NO — but a design theory does not claim thatnon-design is impossible and design is certain,it only claims that design seems more probable.

In all science, proof is always impossibleso the goal is a logically justified confidencein a theory's plausibility (does it seem true?)by determining what is "a good way to bet."

It seems unreasonable for critics of design todemand (along with radical postmodern criticswho challenge the credibility of all science) thatif scientists cannot claim the certainty of proof,they should claim nothing.

FALSIFIABILITY

A design theory is FALSIFIABLE, but only ifour criterion is plausibility instead of proof, so

• we conclude that "design is probably true" if ALL non-design theories seem implausible,

• and we conclude "design is probably false" if ANY non-design theory seems plausible.

an example:All current theories for a natural origin of carbon-based life seem implausible. Is it rational for scientists to consider the possibility of design-directed action?

The certainty of "proof" is impossible because we can never propose and falsify all possibilities for non-design.  But maybe we can develop a logically justified confidence that our search has been thorough yet futile, and no scientifically promising approaches remain unexplored.

ALL POSSIBILITIES

A flexible, open-minded scientist should consider all possibilities:

Maybe a feature was produced by undirected natural process that 1w) was extremely improbable (so theories are inadequate) or1w*) was actually probable because we live in a multiverse,

or undirected natural process that was reasonably probable, andcould be satisfactorily explained by a non-design theory that is1x) currently known (even if it doesn't seem plausible now), or1y) could be known in the future (with advances in science), or1z) could never be known (too complex or mentally unfamiliar),

or maybe it was produced by design-directed action, by2A) natural design and construction-action, or2B) supernatural design and creation-action.

These possibilities combine ontology (re: what happened) and epistemology (re: our knowledge of what happened).

CAUTION & ALIENS

Reasons for Caution

Due to the possibilities fora future theory (1y) orno theory (1w, 1w*, 1z),the implausibility of current non-design theoriesdoes not (cannot) prove the truth of a design theory.

Therefore, scientists could deny design forever,no matter how advanced their science becomes.

For example, imagine a super-scientific community withtrillions of super-intelligent space aliens (IQ = 20,000)each with life span of a billion years, devoted to science(and exploring environments throughout the universe)for the past 5 billion years, who have not yet constructeda plausible theory for an origin of life by natural process.Even in this situation a denial of design would be possible.

Which of the possibilities is preferred by a scientist or community?depends on scientific evaluation + philosophical interpretation

FUTURE SCIENCE

But in the near future, some caution is justifiable becauseactual human knowledge will remain much less advanced.

Future Science: Should we assume it will help non-design?How will "more knowledge" affect the status of design theory?

LOWER if scientists discover a plausible non-design theory, HIGHER if we learn more about the limits of natural process.

an example: chemical evolution seems less plausible now than in 1953, due to our improved knowledge in 52 years.

We can try to estimate the "future science" effects ofdeveloping current theories and inventing new theories:we need creativity (to imagine development & invention)plus critical thinking (to rationally determine what seemsprobable in reality, not just possible in our imaginations).

USE KNOWLEDGE

We can use our current knowledge to guide our estimates of future knowledge:

Most of the skepticism about current theories of chemical evolution is based on what we know, and our knowledge can help us ask specific questions.  We can look at each obstacle to a natural origin of life — such as the unfavorable equilibria for the chemical reactions needed to make biomolecules, the high degree of biocomplexity required for metabolism and reproduction, ... — and try to imagine ways in which future knowledge might change our views about each obstacle.  We can ask, "How likely is each change?" and "How would it affect our evaluations for a natural origin of life?"

ASK THE QUESTION?

• Should we ask the question?In the near future, scientists will disagree aboutthe plausibility of design.  But disagreement can be healthy for science if it stimulates productive thinking and research by advocates for different points of view. 

• When we ask,Was design-action involved in producing this feature?it will be impossible to answer with certainty. 

• But it should be easy to decide,  Should we ask the question?

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

( with links )

DESIGN & CREATION

Design & Creation — Logical Analysis• design theories are common in science (mainly in social

and historical sciences with humans) and are evaluatedand (if it seems justified) accepted, but a design theoryis controversial if designer and design-action could beeither natural (space alien?) or supernatural (miracle?).

• A basic design theory (claiming only "there was design")can be supplemented with details (re: designer's identityand actions) to form theories about supernatural creation(with design-action by God or...) or natural non-creation(design-action by space aliens with super-technologies).

• A basic design theory does not propose divine action,but does acknowledge this as one of the possibilities.

• MikeBehe: As a person, he thinks designer was God.As a scientist, evidence doesn't say who designer was.

• analogy and consistency (for design and non-design):We can view a theory of design (or evolution) as beingmainly scientific or mainly religious ; we can evaluate"mere design" and "mere evolution" based on evidenceand logic, as if each had minimal religious implications.

SOCIOL & THEOLOGY

Design & Creation — Sociological Analysis• What are the influences (religious, political, peer,...)

on proponents and opponents of design, and by them,in communities of scientists and in society-and-culture.

• intelligent design and young-earth creationism: links?the similarities and differences? (logical & sociological)

• connections between ID and YEC should be considered(but should not be determinative) in education, but aremostly irrelevant in science for basic design theories.

Rigid Methodological Naturalism — in Theology • methodological naturalism ≠ metaphysical NATURALISM

• For a theist, "natural" does not mean "without God" becausenatural process is designed, created, sustained, and (maybe)guided by God, and two theologically acceptable options are:

• Open Science (testable-MN), Open Search (with MN-scienceas one aspect of a broader "open search" that considers allpossibilities, including miracles). In both, MN-science isrespected as an expert witness, but is not the judge andjury when we define rationality and search for truth.

MN -- RIGID

Rigid Methodological Naturalism — in Science• With rigid-MN, scientists must always conclude (independent

of evidence and logic) that "it happened by natural process."

• Could this lead to unavoidable error? (imagine two worlds)If humble (admit we don't know for certain) use testable-MN:begin with MN, view as assumption, not necessary conclusion.

• Will we find keys if searching in kitchen, but keys on porch?use perseverance + flexibility; consider both, not either-or

• rigid-MN assumption automatically becomes MN conclusion,bypassing process of science, claiming authority of science:futility of MN-humility (science ≠ truth?) due to its rarity.

• Basic design theory doesn't propose supernatural, does allow.

• Does "allowing supernatural" violate The Rules of Science?moving refrigerators in StrongMan Contest or in business?view science as a game with rules, or an activity with goals?

• science = search for natural explanations? (adequate logical?)everyone agrees about logical, but if conflict what has priority?

MIRACLES - GAPS

Miracles & Science• Can they coexist? To make a reliable science possible,

must nature be always natural, or just usually natural?

God of the gaps • Can a science-gap (if we can't understand how natural

process could produce what we see) be a nature-gap?

• This phrase should be eliminated from our vocabularybecause it is imprecise, with many potential meanings:a science-gap is always a nature-gap (naive science),God's actions occur only in nature-gaps (bad theology),nature-gaps impossible (ok for atheist, not for theist),nature-gaps possible (acceptable theology for theist),nature-gaps are necessary in nature (questionable),nature-gap did occur or did not occur in this situation(evaluate each claim based on science and theology).

• When someone says "God of the gaps" we should ask:

What is the precise meaning you are intending? 

BEHE & JOURNALS

Mike Behe's Adventures with Science Journals• When Michael Behe submitted papers to science journals,

some editors were interested, but groups were intolerant.

• One editorial board concluded its rejection, "Our journal... believes that evolutionary explanations of all structuresand phenomena of life are possible and inevitable."

• lofty ideals of scientists, with noble vision of scienceas intellectually free exploration with flexible thinking,in objective pursuit of truth; in ideal science, Behe'sthought-provoking questions would be welcomed as aconstructive challenge, an opportunity to gain a morecomplete understanding of evolution at molecular level,the journals would be eager to communicate new ideas,to host invigorating debates between critics of a theoryand its loyal defenders; his questions would be used tostimulate productive thinking (critical/creative) and action.

• Instead, critical questions are resented and rejected.

• In the near future, scientists will disagree about theplausibility and utility of design, but conflicts arecommon in science, can be intellectually productive.

• Should journal editors wait until proponents of designhave irrefutable proof? Should we ask the questions?