Reasonable people would agree that a higher resolution picture of an actual Face on Mars would have strengthened an original suspicion of design based on the 1976 Viking photograph. But let’s score the Face.

1976 Viking view: It does sort of look like a carved face, but the lack of detail and shadows keep it from having a very strong resemblence to a face. Thus, I’d give it an Analogy score of 2. In terms of continuity, I don’t see any powerful reason why natural forces on the planet Mars could not have formed what is shown in this picture. I’d give it a Discontinuity score of -5, but because of the lack of detail, I’ll settle for a -4. I don’t see any basis for a Rationality or Foresight score, so I score both these as 0. That gives me a DM score of -0.5. It’s ambiguous enough to keep an open mind, but I lean toward a non-telic explanation.

2001 MGS view: It no longer looks like a face; it clearly looks like a typical mountain. The Analogy score drops to -5. This looks like something natural forces could have easily formed, thus I give it a Discontinuity Score of -5. I don’t see any basis for a Rationality or Foresight score, so I score both these as 0. That gives me a DM score of -2.5. It’s not designed.

The Face That Could Have Been:

This clearly looks like a Face. I’d give it an Analogy score of+5, but I’d like to see the structure from different angles. So I’ll score it +4. As for Disontinuity, I would use reasoning very similar to that used by Dawkins:

The sheer number of details in which the Mount Rushmore faces resemble the real things is too great to have come about by chance. The faces are clearly recognizable, moreover, when seen from different angles. . . . But of all the possible ways of weathering a mountain, only a tiny minority would be speaking likenesses of four particular human beings. Even if we did not know the history of Mount Rushmore, we’d estimate the odds against its four heads being carved by accidental weathering as astronomically high—like tossing a coin forty times and getting heads every time.

Thus, I would give it a Disontuity score of +5. However, since there would be no further information that would help us determine a Rationality and Foresight score, these two criteria would each weigh in as 0. The final DM score would thus be +2.25; the design suspicion is strengthened.

Okay, it kind of looks like a profile of a face. What about a closer look?

It still resembles a profile, but it doesn’t look very detailed or carved. What’s worse, the face-like appearance seems to be dependent on one particular perspective, as I can’t find a frontal view of the Old Man that still looks like a face. Thus, I’ll give it an Analogy score of +1.

There is nothing in this picture which would lead me to think natural forces could not or did not form this structure. In fact, the face shows the same “texture” as the rest of the mountain. So I’d give it a Discontinuity score of -5. There isn’t any obvious, relevant information for a Rationality score, so I’ll give it a 0. But the structure looks precariously placed and prone to collapse. In fact, it did collapse in 2003. Thus, it gets a Foresight score of -5. This gives it a DM score of -2.25, far less suggestive that the 1976 Face on Mars.

As we all know, leaders in the ID movement commonly cite Mt. Rushmore as an example of design. I even incorporated it into ID101. The idea is that if we were to come upon Mt Rushmore for the first time, we’d recognize it as something that was designed even though we may have had no information about the designers and method used to design. While such additional information may work to confirm the design inference for those who might be hyper-skeptical, the information is simply not needed to infer design. So far, so good.

Yet how is it that we infer design? The criterion of Irreducible Complexity is of no use, as Mt Rushmore is not an assembly of parts and has no function that is dependent on all the parts being present. The best would be the criterion of Complex Specified Information. Here we have a clear example of specification – the faces of American Presidents, Washington, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln. And Mt. Rushmore surely looks complex. But we quickly run into a problem, as no calculation of such complexity exists and, in fact, I don’t think anyone knows how to calculate such complexity. But we could rely on the insightof Richard Dawkins:

The sheer number of details in which the Mount Rushmore faces resemble the real things is too great to have come about by chance. The faces are clearly recognizable, moreover, when seen from different angles. . . . Its four heads are clearly designed. A sculptor conceived them, drew them out on paper, made meticulous measurements all over the cliff , and supervised teams of workmen who wielded pneumatic drills and dynamite to carve out the four faces, each sixty feet high. The weather could have done the same job as the artfully deployed dynamite. But of all the possible ways of weathering a mountain, only a tiny minority would be speaking likenesses of four particular human beings. Even if we did not know the history of Mount Rushmore, we’d estimate the odds against its four heads being carved by accidental weathering as astronomically high—like tossing a coin forty times and getting heads every time.

This argument strikes me as entirely valid, but nevertheless, it is an intuitive argument. Thus, it would seem that in this case, the complexity component of CSI can only be appreciated intuitively and subjectively.

Nevertheless, does this intuitive/subjective element to the argument invalidate the inference? Of course not. The gist of the CSI argument, specified and complex, does succeed in delivering the design inference. Just as we do not need the independent information about Mt. Rushmore’s designers, along with their methods and goals, neither do we need to calculate anything here. In this case, the calculations, like the independent information, would simply act to confirm the design inference.

In an investigation, there is a place for confirmation. And it is not at the beginning.

It’s time to score Mt. Rushmore. Again, let’s imagine I never heard of Mt. Rushmore and had never seen it before. I am then presented with some photos:

High resolution photos clearly show four faces. What’s more, the faces can be easily recognized as faces from various different angles. These four faces are clearly analogous to other sculpted faces that are known to be designed. Analogy score of +5.

In terms of Discontinuity, once again, Richard Dawkins’ argument applies:

The sheer number of details in which the Mount Rushmore faces resemble the real things is too great to have come about by chance. The faces are clearly recognizable, moreover, when seen from different angles. . . . Its four heads are clearly designed. A sculptor conceived them, drew them out on paper, made meticulous measurements all over the cliff , and supervised teams of workmen who wielded pneumatic drills and dynamite to carve out the four faces, each sixty feet high. The weather could have done the same job as the artfully deployed dynamite. But of all the possible ways of weathering a mountain, only a tiny minority would be speaking likenesses of four particular human beings. Even if we did not know the history of Mount Rushmore, we’d estimate the odds against its four heads being carved by accidental weathering as astronomically high—like tossing a coin forty times and getting heads every time.

Discontinuity score of +5.

In terms of Rationality, we can make use of two facts (one depends on independent knowledge): these faces are obviously huge and they are clearly meant to represent four American presidents. What would explain these two facts is the hypothesis that these faces represent some form of tribute. While a tribute itself is not rational, only rational beings create tributes. Because of this, I would give it a fairly high Rationality score of +3.

As for Foresight, the last picture is very helpful, as it indicates the faces are not found deep within some mountain range that is largely inaccessible. In other words, if the faces are indeed a tribute, foresight was involved by placing these faces in a place that could be accessed by many. Foresight score of +3.

The DM average score would be +4; a strong case for design.

Interestingly, what if we did not have independent knowledge of American presidents? In that case, I think the Rationality score would fall to 0, but a foresight score of +2 would be supported by the hypothesis of the faces being an attention-getting signal. Thus, the DM average would be +3, still indicating design, but not with the same strength. In other words, the DM does respond to new data or additional knowledge (i.e., the identity of the faces).