Jon Bellamy spoke with Alastair Noble

Alastair Noble

A new centre for intelligent design has opened in the UK. Intelligent design theory argues that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by intelligent causation. As something that has been associated more strongly with the USA, this new Centre means that it has a voice in the UK as well. To find out more Jonathan Bellamy spoke with Alastair Noble, the Centre Director.

Jonathan: For those who haven't heard this term before, what do you mean by intelligent design?

Alastair: Intelligent design asserts that there are features of the universe, both the natural world and the living world that give clear evidence of design. It argues that when we look at nature in the round, or when we look at it closely, the design in nature is evident and it points to intelligent causation.

Jonathan: This is a theory I assume, in the same way that for scientists evolution is a theory? Would you say that there is interest from the scientific world in this theory that they would genuinely be open to discuss the concept?

Alastair: It is more of an inference from evidence than it is a theory, but we may be quibbling about that. The scientific community is not open to discussing it and that's partly why we've formed a Centre for intelligent design. We are committed to promoting the debate around intelligent design because we think it should be debated. It is a clear inference from the evidence of nature and it ought to be debated and that's what we're committed to doing. Evolution is actually an inference also although it is frequently treated as if it were a fact. There are elements of evolutionary theory that are beyond dispute, but the grand theory of evolution is also an inference from data and we think that intelligent design is a much better inference, a much more solid inference from the data that we have.

Jonathan: Can you give us some examples?

Alastair: I think the most striking example is the information that is contained within living things. Every cell of your body and my body, and we've got about a hundred trillion of them, each cell has a vast bank of genetic information carried in our DNA. Now we know that functional information only ever comes from an intelligent source, from an intelligent mind and therefore it is a very straight forward inference to say the vast information bank that's carried in nature has to have an intelligent source. That's probably the clearest evidence of design in nature although there are others like the sheer complexity of the living cell and inter-related systems or the sophistication of the universe; the fine tuning of natural laws. These are all pointers to intelligent causation.

Jonathan: Do you think that things like the complexity of a cell surprises the scientists who discover it? I imagine that scientists around Darwin's time couldn't have known things like that?

Alastair: That is one of the great discoveries of modern times and we've only relatively recently understood how hugely complex the cell is. A single living cell is almost a universe of its own. Darwin thought it was little more than a blob of protoplasm that could somehow form in the warm motion. The interlocking nano technological systems of the cell are quite breathtaking. I only came to understand this in the last five years or so. You can't look at that without seeing the evidence of design; an engineer would immediately say these are design systems. These systems would not arise randomly; these systems are built and designed to be like that. There's a very compelling argument. It is an argument that needs to be heard and it needs to be heard not only in the public forum but also in the scientific community. It's one of the sadnesses that it is just dismissed as unworthy of debate.

Jonathan: So what you're saying is that recent evidence is saying we need a new theory? Where scientists might have accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, it's almost like science is now saying that it is outdated, we need a truer model based on what we are seeing now?

Alastair: Yes, as I said there are elements of evolution. Evolution is a slippery word. It means a whole lot of different things. There are elements of evolutionary theory that are beyond dispute. This is a very fundamental issue. The Darwinian view of origins is that somehow or other life came together randomly and somehow natural selection, acting on mutations, is enough to explain all the complexity of life. Intelligent design challenges that very definitely and says yes, we need a different view of this because we live in an information age and the key to life is information. Information only comes from an intelligent source in all of our experience. We need a theory of this that is built on what is actually there. This is not speculating about what we don't know, it's what we do know. Life is run by information and it's a legitimate question to say, where did that information come from? Intelligent design says the obvious inference is that it comes from an intelligent source.

Jonathan: I understand that recent surveys by the BBC and also Theos, a public policy think tank, have showed there's a high level of interest and sympathy for the ID position?

Alastair: The BBC, I think it was in 2006 for a Horizon, 50% of people thought that ID was a credible position. It's just a shame that they didn't actually broadcast that in their programme. In fairness they put it on their website and Theos more recently in 2009 when seeking public opinion about evolution and intelligent design and other views on origins found that, I think just over 50% of the population thought that intelligent design was a pretty convincing position. I'm not surprised at that because even without looking at the data, even without looking at the cell closely, intuitively I think people would say yes that makes sense. The world looks as if it is designed. So we shouldn't be surprised to find right down in the heart of the cell that we have got a hugely complicated information processing system. It looks designed and the best inference is that it is designed.

Jonathan: A lot of people will say this is another way of describing creation verses evolution and is part of that debate, which has been around for many years. Is intelligent design taking that particular angle?

Alastair: That is one of the difficulties of this debate. Intelligent design is not creationism; it's not a religious position. It doesn't start from religious texts or from religious interpretation. It starts from the raw data; it starts from the science. It says the evidence of design is actually there and it is a reasonable thing to infer intelligent causation. Now of course, that has implications, very deep implications; philosophical implications; it has religious implications; but ID is not proposing a religious position. It is proposing an inference from the data and I think people need to look at that and they can make up their minds about what the implications of it are.

Jonathan: Is the new Centre a place that people can come to see this evidence?

Alastair: Well, I wouldn't want to overstate our centre. Our centre is really a network of volunteers around the country. We have a website www.c4id.org.uk and we are set up to undertake a number of projects. We haven't got a centre where people can visit. We have an administrative centre in Glasgow, but we will be visible.

We're having Professor Michael Behe from the United States tour Britain November 20-27. He's one of the iconic figures of the intelligent design movement in the United States. He will be talking about the complexity of the living cell and the biology and the reasons why he has become convinced that it points to design. You can visit www.darwinordesign.org.uk for more info on that. We're having events in Belfast, Bournemouth, Cambridge, Glasgow, Leamington, Warwick and London and Oxford.

These are the kind of projects initially that we're going to be running. We're going to be doing public events and we hope increasingly academic and professional events to promote the debate around intelligent design.