“The Design Spectrum” refers to multiple “spectrums,” including the following two:
1. For any given phenomenon, after considering all the arguments and counter-arguments, an individual could conclude that there is a strong inference of design, a weak inference of design, a strong inference that non-design causes adequately explain the phenomenon or a weak inference that non-design causes adequately explain the phenomenon. A person could conclude that there is no basis for an inference either way. For example, one may conclude that the fine-tuning of the universe creates a strong inference of design, but the bacterial flagellum creates only a weak inference of design.
2. We can also line up scientists and philosophers and, for that matter, everyone along a spectrum based on whether they think design arguments from science are convincing or at least interesting, and which arguments based on which phenomena are the most convincing or interesting. For example, Francis Collins, Tim Keller, Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer all think that design arguments based on the fine-tuning of the universe are strong. However, Behe and Meyer think that design arguments based on the bacterial flagellum are strong, whereas Collins does not. Richard Dawkins does not think that any of these arguments are strong, although he has expressed some openness to design arguments as long as it is understood that the designer is not God but rather some kind of evolved “civilization” somewhere in the universe.
[Note: This is a first draft of what will by my “about” page. I plan to add to this and include links to other posts over time.]