FAQ 1 is Open For Comment
| February 3, 2009 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
1] ID is “not science”
On the contrary, as Dr William Dembski, a leading Intelligent Design researcher, has aptly defined:
“Intelligent Design is . . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”
In turn, science at its best is an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive search for the truth about our world; based on empirical evidence and reasoned analysis. If instead one assumes or asserts the prior constraint that scientific explanations must be “naturalistic” or even — as Lewontin openly said – “materialistic,” that mistakenly imposes materialistic conclusions before the facts can speak. This blatantly begs the question, but such a blunder is now all too common; even among those who try to speak authoritatively in the name of science, education or the law. Similarly, an obvious alternative to a “natural” cause is an “artificial” — i.e. intelligent – one. And, as experience abundantly confirms, intelligent acts typically result in empirically observable signs of intelligence.
Just look all around you.
Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for a scientific theory:
-
It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).
-
It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.
-
It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
-
It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions (see point 4)
gpuccio,
Well I wish you luck on this. But CSI has no accepted definition and to use it as an indication that ID is science is potentially sending it down a road with a dead end.
If anyone thinks they know what CSI is then maybe they can explain it. FCSI is as simple as eating pie so don’t use that to form a definition of CSI. Remember is has to explain bridge hand, Mr. Rushmore, and coin flips as well as DNA. The problem is in the word specified. In FCSI the information under analysis is doing the specifying and is easily understood when expressed that way. In CSI the information is what is specified (the opposite of FCSI) and does not necessarily have a function nor a logical connection to anything and that is where the morass is.
jerry:
I will never understand you. I can agree that the general concept of CSI is more difficult to deal with than the subset of funcrionally specified CSI (FSCI, if you want). But FSCI is still a subset of CSI, one where the specification is functional.
Restricting the discussion to FSCI is no problem for the applications in biology, because, as we have said many times, the CSI in biology is all of the type of FSCI. And I ususally restrict even more the concept for practical application to biological models, to the subset of FSCI in a string of digital information, such as DNA or proteins. Therefore, where is the problem? The only pertinent application of CSI in biology is FSCI, so if you agree that FSCI can be easily managed, what are you complaining of? If you read the remaining part of the FAQ, or if you wait formthe discussion of it here, you will see that we, being interested only to the applications in biology, practically always deal with FSCI.
I stay with my idea that the general problem of an universal definition of CSI remains very important, but not so much for biological applications. So, maybe we can agree on that part of the discussion.
But I have used the term CSI in point one of the FAQ because it is correct and more familiar in the general discussion. It is correct, because FSCI “is” CSI. In biological information, we find FSCI, and therefore we find CSI. But we certainly don’t find Mount Rushmore: we find functional specification.
—–JayM: “I agree that the scientific method can be used to investigate the presence or absence of design in biological systems. I agree that ID theory could, in principle, be formulated in such a way as to generate testable predictions that could falsify the theory. I have yet to see such a formulation myself.”
So, I take it then, that you do not think ID is science but you think it could be. On the other hand, you have your own definition of science. So, that pretty much puts you in a position to reject ID on the strength of your own definitions until ID decides to come around to your way of thinking.
—-“To be perfectly clear, I do not agree that the nature of the designer has to be, or even can be, off-limits in ID theory. See my comments on Dr. Fuller’s thread for more detail on that.”
Yes, you have made it perfectly clear that you do not think ID’s own definition of itself is sufficient. You would like to see ID change its mission and its purpose to conform to your perception of what its mission and purpose ought to be. The only problem with that is that only the scientist can choose his own methods because only the scientist knows what research questions he would like to answers.
—–“I also do not agree that Dr. Dembski’s CSI is currently sufficiently well-defined to serve as a mechanism of design detection. I would like to see it more formalized.”
Yes, I get that. You will grant that ID is science when ID agrees to do things your way.
—–“My personal view is that Dr. Behe’s approach of investigating the limits of MET mechanisms is likely to be the most fruitful area of ID research in the near future.”
I think I get the idea. Just for fun, do you think Michael Behe is doing science?
—-”Someone here is definitely missing the point. If you re-read my post, you’ll see I was suggesting that the FAQ answer should point out that the question is ill-formed and answer the real question, in terms of use of the scientific method and generation of testable predictions.”
Don’t tell me. You don’t like the question because it wasn’t asked in a way that you would have preferred. Let us hope that, someday, we can learn to conform to your mission for ID, your definition of science, your standard for methods, and your judgment about the way the FAQ questions were formed. You do indeed set the bar very high.
That’s probably one of the reasons why we preferred a more open definition for science,
GP, it might not be bad to throw in an addendum recognizing the popular definition of science (observation, hypothesis, experimentation etc.) and noting how ID fulfills it anyway.
And while I’m thinking about it, it might not be a bad idea to point out the inherent limitations of the popular concept of science namely that it is incapable of addressing very real and very important matters.
A methodology requiring a material answer will inevitably become trapped in an infinite loop if it tries to answer the question “what started it all.” So where did that cause come from, so where did that cause come from et. until it breaks its own rules and presumes multiverses where the physics are different and hence discredits itself.
A methodology based on logic and philosophy of course has no such problem i.e. “Logic tells us there has to be an uncaused cause hence we hold that to be axiomatic, so now let’s go do something useful.”
And of course, we can humbly point out that ID is part of the type of science that can’t answer most questions. All it can do is say, “yes, this is designed.”
Actually, ID can’t even say “this is not designed” since false negatives are expected.
trib,
“GP, it might not be bad to throw in an addendum recognizing the popular definition of science (observation, hypothesis, experimentation etc.) and noting how ID fulfills it anyway.”
well, in the second part we do exactly that. It starts, indeed, with:
“Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for a scientific theory:”
and goes on with the four points.
So, the structure of the answers is something like that: we give our definition nof science, keeping it as broad as possible, and at the same time we show how ID is consistent even with a “restricted” definition of science. The only thing ID is not compatible with is a definition of science so restricted that it is “ad hoc” for a specific philosophy, like materialism. In other words, a definition like “Science is only what is compatible with darwinian theroy” will not do, not for us, at least.
And although I love philosophy of science, I think that a FAQ like this has to keep some limits.
GP, I think I’m seeing what troubles me about the definition.
When dealing with people who are very well educated, or who have been following the issue, it’s perfect.
For those who may be coming to this after not having picked up a science book since high school (or for a high school student writing a paper) It might be good to have something in there that expressly addresses what they were taught.
This is basically what I remember being taught: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.”
IOW, if the words “observation” and “experimentation” can be worked in and it be shown how they apply to ID (and they do) it might have benefits that haven’t been considered.
I wouldn’t change your wording, btw. I would go with an addendum i.e. For High School Students: Science is commonly taught in high schools to be etc. ID makes observations about nature, hypothesizes they have etc.
Anyway, it’s just something to mull.
StephenB @93
If in fact there is no explicit ID theory that generates testable predictions, then ID is not science. However, I think you are mistaking my goal. I am trying to contribute to this FAQ by explaining how I would address the ID opponent assertion “ID is not science.”
Now, it so happens that I personally haven’t seen examples of ID researchers applying the scientific method, nor have I seen an explicit theory of ID stated along with testable predictions. The fact that I haven’t seen those doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I raise the issue because I would like to see someone who does know where to find that information provide it and put it in the FAQ.
If that information is not available, then I would suggest that ID is an early stage hypothesis that can be investigated further using the tools of science.
I think you will find that the definition of the scientific method and my desire to see ID theory stated in a falsifiable manner are extremely mainstream views of science.
Since your premise is wrong, it’s not surprising that your conclusion is as well.
The scientific method and the criteria for a theory to be considered scientific are basics taught at the high school level. I’m not sure where you’re going with this line of reasoning. Are you saying that ID does not meet the current definition of “science” and so we need to change the definition?
Your passion for ID is clouding your reading comprehension. First, nothing in my statement about CSI has anything to do with the definition of science. Second, my definition is a very common one.
I see this type of response unfortunately often from ID proponents. You’re attacking me rather than supporting your own position. If you know of ID researchers using the scientific method, simply produce the results they are generating. If you know of an explicit statement of ID theory that generates testable predictions, show it to us. If you’re certain that CSI can be calculated for real world biological constructs, do the math.
When all even the most sympathetic questioners get back is vitriol instead of answers, it suggests that vitriol is all ID has to offer.
I thought the FAQ was supposed to provide real answers.
I think that exploring the “edge of evolution” by investigating the limits of MET mechanisms and the topology of viable genome space can be done scientifically. I haven’t checked Dr. Behe’s publications or website recently so I don’t know if he is actively doing scientific research.
JJ
JayM
How ID is science: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.”
ID takes an observed natural phenomena, DNA; hypothesis that if it is designed it will have characteristics that exists only objects of known design; quantifies those characteristics and applies them to DNA (i.e. the experiment).
How to falsify:
1. Show those characteristics are found in objects of known to form without design (snowflakes for instance).
2. Show those characteristics do not actually exist in the objects of known design.
3. Show those characteristics do not exist in the target, in this case DNA.
—–JayM: “I see this type of response unfortunately often from ID proponents. You’re attacking me rather than supporting your own position.”
I am sorry that you think that I am attacking you. To me, everyone is accountable, and everyone’s ideas are subject to scrutiny, and that includes the scrutinizer. I don’t know how other ID advocates feel about that; I speak only for myself.
In any case, I asked you if Michael Behe is a scientist, and I must say that I was flabbergasted by your answer.
You write:
“I think that exploring the “edge of evolution” by investigating the limits of MET mechanisms and the topology of viable genome space can be done scientifically. I haven’t checked Dr. Behe’s publications or website recently so I don’t know if he is actively doing scientific research.”
So, you will not even concede that Michael Behe is doing science, or that he is an ID “scientist.” Remarkable. Earlier you identified him as the most promising ID researcher. So, in your judgment, IDs brightest light is not even a scientist, at least not in his role as an ID researcher. You are entitled to your opinion, or course, but that seems like a radical position to take.
Tell me this, though. If he is not a scientist now, will he become one when he successfully refutes the NDE position? Or, is it your position that he will grow into a scientist during the process?
Thank you one and all. Comments on FAQ 1 are now closed. I will review and revise the FAQ.