Abstract
The explanatory filter is a proposed method to detect design in nature with the aim of refuting Darwinian evolution. The explanatory filter borrows its logical structure from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing but we argue that, when viewed within this context, the filter runs into serious trouble in any interesting biological application. Although the explanatory filter has been extensively criticized from many angles, we present the first rigorous criticism based on the theory of mathematical statistics.
Introduction
A classic creationist argument against Darwinian evolution is that it is as likely as a tornado in a junkyard creating a Boeing 747. In recent years, the criticism has become more measured, coming not from young-earth creationists but from proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). The main claim of the ID proponents is that some biological phenomena are impossible to adequately explain without referring to design. The perhaps most prominent representative for the ID movement is biochemist Michael Behe whose 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) presents challenges to Darwinian evolution based on irreducibly complex biochemical systems.
Concluding remarks
The explanatory filter may be logically sound but it is virtually impossible to apply. The criticism presented against Dembski’s application to the bacterial flagellum may be countered by pointing out that this is merely one example that is far from complete, which Dembski also readily acknowledges. In addition, he has no monopoly on the filter and there may be those who are more successful in applying it than Dembski himself. Regardless of any such objections, the application to the flagellum exemplifies the problems that will show up in any application to any even mildly complicated biological system.
