Specified complexity

Specified complexity is a creationist argument introduced by <a href="/facts/William_Dembski/ggI4YtxB">William Dembski</a>, used by advocates to promote the <a href="/facts/Pseudoscience/kdNzoLeS">pseudoscience</a> of <a href="/facts/Intelligent_design/BWx7LxGf">intelligent design</a>. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, where in Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. An example cited by Dembski is a poker hand, where for example the repeated appearance of a <a href="/facts/Royal_flush_(poker_hand)/qcv8KhwA">royal flush</a> will raise suspicion of cheating. Proponents of intelligent design use specified complexity as one of their two main arguments, along with <a href="/facts/Irreducible_complexity/fHYsyh9K">irreducible complexity</a>.
Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. Dembski further argues that one can show by applying <a href="/facts/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization/aNGHqkID">no-free-lunch theorems</a> the inability of evolutionary algorithms to select or generate configurations of high specified complexity. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an <a href="/facts/Intelligent_designer/h6uKhgVF">intelligent agent</a>—a central tenet to intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to <a href="/facts/Evolution/Hj0qAaBk">modern evolutionary theory</a>. Specified complexity is what Dembski terms an "explanatory filter": one can recognize design by detecting complex specified information (CSI). Dembski argues that the unguided emergence of CSI solely according to known <a href="/facts/Physical_laws/aVtc4wpk">physical laws</a> and chance is highly improbable.
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in <a href="/facts/Information_theory/qNLH3U5P">information theory</a>, in the theory of <a href="/facts/Complex_systems/eGG3B1nn">complex systems</a>, or in <a href="/facts/Biology/1M1ee3pB">biology</a>. A study by <a href="/facts/Wesley_R._Elsberry/U40DaXoN">Wesley Elsberry</a> and <a href="/facts/Jeffrey_Shallit/4bmJgyIH">Jeffrey Shallit</a> states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results." Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to <a href="/facts/Martin_Nowak/HB9j5Hbp">Martin Nowak</a>, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."

Specified complexity open-in-new

Specified complexity