I refer to SK Wong's letter Who created the Creator then?
While Wong has not indicated whether he is a Darwinist or not, I assume that he is. Furthermore, it is good for me to do so as it will allow me to address a wider audience.
Complexity, in 'specified complexity', means an event, object or structure that cannot be produced by chance within a universal probability bound. Simply stated, complexity is something that the universe cannot produce within its limited probability resources.
Michael Behe, a biochemist, identified the bacterial flagellum as a biological system that is irreducibly complex. To counter this problem, Wong suggested an infinite number of other universes, thus inflating his pool of probability resources to account for such complexities.
In this case, anything goes - anything is possible. We shall simply dispense away with all laws of mathematics because, with infinite probability resources, we can simply explain anything away as chance.
It is entirely possible that Vladimir Kramnik moved his chess pieces randomly and won the world championship from Gary Kasparov. It will not surprise me, due to unlimited probability resources drawn from other universes, if Wong tells me Shakespeare was actually a monkey who by randomly arranging the alphabets produced Macbeth .
How does Wong know Shakespeare is actually an intelligent designer? He may just be the correct monkey from an unlimited number of monkeys randomly arranging the alphabets! And he may not be the only one.
How can anyone attribute my previous letter on intelligent design to my intelligence? You simply cannot. I can just be randomly typing away at my keyboard and producing a publishable letter to the editor. And why am I replying to a letter that has so much probability of being generated from a random alphabet generator? If we are to do any science at all, we need to limit ourselves to our small and finite universe.
Now, on to Wong's primary objection to intelligent design - who designed the designer (as opposed to who created the creator)? That's an interesting question, but not one for design theorists to solve. Wong alleges that intelligent design is a matter of faith - it is not.
It only becomes theological when it attempts to answer questions it was not meant to answer. Design theorists only detect design in events, objects and structures - that X is designed. The who/what/where/when/why/how is someone else's job.
If I am forced to answer this question, I can only answer from a theological, not design theory, point of view, that the Designer is the ever-existing God. That is faith.
Being able to reliably detect design is science. The only plausible way to render the current method to detect design useless is to prove that the methods themselves are flawed which, of course, will be replaced by a strengthened method.
The only bona fide way to throw intelligent design into ultimate oblivion is to prove that there is no scientific way to detect design at all. Until that happens, intelligent design remains scientific.
