The Design Detective

March 12, 2010
Related topics: Intelligent Design |

• Print

Today’s entry is part of our Video Blog series. For similar resources, visit our audio/video section, or our full "Conversations" collection. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. For more on what BioLogos believes, click here.

Today's entry was written by Gordon J. Glover. Gordon J. Glover holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Ocean Engineering and is the author of Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and Creation. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, he now resides in the Washington, D.C. area where he works and runs the popular blog, "Beyond the Firmament".

In his new animated video series “The Design Detective,” Gordon Glover offers an entertaining but insightful look at some of the conversation surrounding Intelligent Design theory.  Glover's characters raise the following question: Even if we knew conclusively that deliberate conscious activity was responsible for an observed phenomenon, is "design" by itself a causally adequate explanation?

Note: BioLogos is aware that the use of satire and comedy in this conversation runs the risk of misunderstanding or unintentional offense.  We would like to discuss these videos today for the sake of the questions that they raise, and hope that we and our readers can do so without lowering the level of conversation to sarcasm.

In episode 1, “CSI:ID”, two men discover a dead body with a knife in its chest, and call in the Design Detective to investigate. The Design Detective determins that the events leading to the man’s death were indeed directed (a homicide). However, the detective has no interest in figuring out who committed the crime, or how the homicide occurred. “See, I’m an Intelligent Design detective,” he clarifies. “I examine the data surrounding a suspicious death and determine whether or not an intelligent cause was involved –– that's it.”

When the men point out that mainstream detectives solve crimes all the time, the detective merely responds that it’s not his job to point out who or what is responsible for the actions, but simply to verify that there was an intelligent cause. “Imagine that, a detective who doesn’t solve crimes,” the two men muse. “What is this world coming to?”  What point is Gordon making here?  As Gordon points out in the intro to this video, is it "responsible science" to claim that a cause was intelligent and then walk away from the conversation?

Episode 2 finds our main characters “In the Lab” examining human DNA and wondering how information is added to and removed from the genome when the Design Detective drops by to lend a hand. After using his cause detector, the detective announces, “Aha! I knew this strand of DNA was designed! It’s no wonder you guys were having such a hard time with it! You must’ve only been looking for natural causes.” When our scientists argue that “design” isn’t an answer to the question of how information changes in the genome, the detective simply repeats his answer.

The scientists ask the detective to at least provide a testable mechanism through which the designer might manipulate genetic information. Unfortunately, the detective informs them that “the actions of the designer are not scientifically detectable.” Again, this raises the question: is Intelligent Design science? 

Both videos leave us with the same message: whether solving a murder or pondering how information is added to the genome, design alone is not a satisfying answer to any question of a scientific nature.  But in yesterday's post, Darrel Falk states that the Intelligent Design movement ought to be considered a scientific movement.  Of course, his concerns are clear that it is a movement of bad science. The question is an interesting one: Is the Intelligent Design movement doing science? If so, is it good science?  And what is an appropriate response to the message of Glover's videos?  On the other hand, should Intelligent Design be considered "bad science" or "not even" science at all?  We welcome your thoughts below.