ID is not science because…
| September 27, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
ID is ineligible for consideration as science because theories that allow for the possibility of forces outside of nature can’t be tested or falsified.
In light of that let’s look at what Ernst Mayr had to say in the introduction that appears in “Origin of Species”, Harvard University Press edition, 1964, p. xii:
In Darwin’s day the prevailing explanation for organic diversity was the story of creation in Genesis. Darwin himself had subscribed to this when he shipped on the ‘Beagle,’ and he was converted to his new ideas only after he had made numerous observations that were to him quite incompatible with creation. He felt strongly that he must establish this point decisively before his readers would be willing to listen to the evolutionary interpretation. Again and again, he describes phenomena that do not fit the creation theory.
Huh. It appears like Darwin was testing scientific creationism and found evidence contrary to it.
So what is it. Is ID science or not science? It seems our opponents want to have their cake and eat it too by saying:
“ID is not science because it cannot be falsified or verified. And by the way, ID has been repeatedly tested and shown to be false.”
74 Responses to ID is not science because…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve gone from the rigidity of Khomeini to a free-thinker in less than a single 24 hour period.
Odd though…there seems to be a theme repeated throughout this threasd – that being, you tend to resist acknowledging the information that disputes your views.
By the way, Wegener’s observations were correct, as are Denton’s and Behe’s.
(…the difference being they do not suffer from a lack of evidence)
—–“Avraham: I have acknowledged, and you seem to be steadfast in wishing not to respond to me, that methodological naturalism is indeed new but its demise would hardly solve the problem, because methodological naturalism is just a refinement, a restriction, of the Greek-derived dictum methodological determinism, i.e. the doctrine of closed cosmic system allowing no outside input. So suppose you manage to dethrone methodological naturalism. You still are left with a methodology that, while not wedded to naturalism, is anti-miracle.
[A] I have responded to you by pointing out that you are incorrect. By calling “methodological naturalism” a Greek-derived dictum you mischaracterize the argument and obfuscate the issue. “Methdological naturalism” is a new development, not a derivation of an old one. It is a novelty because it is a RULE. No rule like this has ever existed before. No such rule can be a refinement because it is the rule itself that defines its essence. It says, in effect, that no researcher MAY investigate design in nature and continue to be a scientist. And yes, you continue to miss the point. Newton would never have said such a thing. Indeed, Aristotle would never have said such a thing. No one has ever said such a thing, because it is not rational. Science chooses its methodology to fit the challenge it faces, and challenges change through time.
The fact that earlier scientists emphasized natural causes does not mean that they believed that nothing else can be science, or that there are no other kinds of causes. Their decision to focus on natural causes was based on two things: {a}The information they had at the time suggested that focusing on natural causes was the optimum way to answer the current questions that they were asking. {b}They were intent on avoiding INAPPROPRIATE theological explanations. It would never have occurred to them, indeed they would have rejected the notion, that either there are no other kinds of causes or that they may not be studied in the name of science. If they were living today and witnessing the growth of information theory, they would have adjusted their sights to this change just as they adjusted their sights to the changes of their own time. The last thing that they or any true scientist would do is ignore evidence in the name of tradition or to insist that their approach to science is definitive.
—–“I deny, what you assert, that it is impossible to make a design inference without assuming design a priori. I just think design by itself isn’t enough, because it’s indiscriminate in where it leads (yes, I will say “Raelians” again).”
[B] You are not thinking this thing through. Consider the earlier paragraph I just wrote. If you saw it written in the sand on the planet Mars, you would draw a design inference. To be more precise, you would conclude that it did not occur as a result of natural causes, just as you conclude that the paragraph I am writing now did not occur as a result of natural causes. Appeal to “Raelians” all you want, a design inference would not be a design inference if the assumption of design preceded it; it would be a tautology. It would be the same of saying [A] I assume design and therefore [B] I conclude design. That is not what would happen if you found a well-designed paragraph written in the sand on Mars. You would observe a pattern and from that pattern you would infer the presence of an intelligent agent. To assume design from the start would be to defeat the entire intellectual exercise.
Upright BiPed,
The two are not necessarily in contradiction. Karl Marx, for example, was of both types.
You seem to have a penchant for holding people to every tiny word they say, and demanding absolute consistency.
I know Wegener’s observations were correct. But I also know, that unlike you, he did not spend inordinate time whining about the “control of information by the elites.”
As for resisting acknowledging information that disputes my views, I see that you, like StephenB, tend to continue accusing me of the same thing even after I’ve demonstrated that the accusation is false. Like any normal personal would be, I’m tired of banging my head against stubborn walls. I’m willing to state my positions three times, and clarify it no end to those who wish for clarification; I am unwilling to have to state my position over and over again in parrot fashion, to people who misinterpret my position over and over again in the same fashion, and similarly I am unwilling to issue a clarification if people take that clarification to be a change in my position (“Look, you’ve changed your position AGAIN!”). Respect begins with respect for your fellow debater’s actual words.
StephenB,
Good, you finally make an assertion that doesn’t misinterpret me. You say methodological naturalism is novel in being a rule. The ancestor of methodological naturalism, which I dubbed as methodological determinism (the cosmos a closed systen with no input from outside possible), was also a rule. It may not have been formalized, it may not have been written down, but rules never need to be. An unwritten rule can be just as onerous a dead hand as a written, formalized one. The believing creationist scientist shares one common belief with his Darwinist enemy: both, upon losing their keys, would discount outright the idea that some demon took it and hid it. This is the heritage of Greek methodological determinism, and it has been an unwritten but firm rule for science since its inception.
You say earlier scientists avoided non-natural causes in science in order to maximize, optimize their answering capabilities. Excellent! Exactly this the materialists do, only with more restrictions than the early scientists. But take away the materialists’ system and you still have restrictions. Restrictions which cut the faith to pieces, because they deny God’s absolute sovereignty over His creation.
I have no problem with the notion that a design inference is an a posteriori conclusion borne out by the forensics. This is not the issue at all. The issue is, that ID speaks of nothing beyond the inference of a designer (not even number, so it could be multiple designers for all we know). Being a big tent means that ID can’t go beyond science. The reason I bring the Raelians is, that there is nothing to prevent someone who infers design from becoming one of them. Or a Deist 18th-century style, or a polytheist ID advocate like Cicero, or… anything. ID might as well be called ABD, for Anything But Darwinism.
I said, that I have no problem with a post factum design inference. Do you accept that there are other ways to posit design? OK, believing in design because the Bible says so is not an inference, and could be a tautology as you say; but why does that make it illegitimate? In wishing to adhere to Greek-derived science and logic, ID works hand in glove with Darwinism in discounting (or denying altogether) the power of revelation. As I said before: ID is ecumenical to a fault.
AB
I would have thought, that the term “Drama Queen”, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed.
Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I’m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn’t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear.
Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That’s why we call it the big tent. It’s not “Anything But Darwinism”. It’s design detection and it’s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don’t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye.
AB, writes: “The issue is, that ID speaks of nothing beyond the inference of a designer (not even number, so it could be multiple designers for all we know). Being a big tent means that ID can’t go beyond science. The reason I bring the Raelians is, that there is nothing to prevent someone who infers design from becoming one of them. Or a Deist 18th-century style, or a polytheist ID advocate like Cicero, or… anything.”
What you say here is exactly correct. To which I respond, “so what”?
I think I understand you now. It seems that your problem is that ID does not make claims that it cannot make, which, it seems to me, is a very odd problem to have.
Yes, ID does not specify who/what the designer is. Why? Simple. Plain old ordinary humility. ID is not a theological or philosophical project. It’s sole purpose is to investigate the empirical data and make reasonable inferences from that data. Where people go after the data has spoken is not for ID to say.
As DaveScot has already demonstrated, the data do not allow us to say much, as an empirical matter, about the nature of the designer other than he/it
1) has a deep understanding of chemistry and physics
2) is capable of abstract thought
3) is ability to manipulate matter to bring abstract thought into physical reality.
Because ID is at its core an empirical investigation, it must per force stop where the data stops. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.
This is no to say that the metaphysical/religious implications of ID are unimportant. ID lends strong support to those who believe in a creator God.
But to criticize ID because it is not something it cannot — by its very nature — be is more than passing strange.
—–Avraham: “Good, you finally make an assertion that doesn’t misinterpret me. You say methodological naturalism is novel in being a rule. The ancestor of methodological naturalism, which I dubbed as methodological determinism (the cosmos a closed systen with no input from outside possible), was also a rule. It may not have been formalized, it may not have been written down, but rules never need to be.”
Actually, you have things turned around again. It was the enlightenment thinking that culminated with Darwinism and the elimination of teleology from science that was new. Eliminating final and formal causes was part of the change that occurred with modern science. Intelligent design constitutes a return to tradition, a renewal of formal and final causes, considerations, by the way, that Newton had made a part of his repertoire. Indeed, Aristotle included efficient, material, formal, and final causes in his study of natural phenomena. Modern science chose to ignore formal and final causes, a point that clearly refutes your assertion about the sameness of science throughout the ages.
——An unwritten rule can be just as onerous a dead hand as a written, formalized one. The believing creationist scientist shares one common belief with his Darwinist enemy: both, upon losing their keys, would discount outright the idea that some demon took it and hid it. This is the heritage of Greek methodological determinism, and it has been an unwritten but firm rule for science since its inception.
We are speaking now of a rule that can formally single out and disfranchise one group of researchers from the scientific community. An unwritten rule can hardly be as onerous as that one, because unwritten rules aren’t used to persecute scientists, slander them, and ruin their careers. There has never been any such rule until now. There is no historical tradition of disfranchising scientists for not following rules or using the proper methods for reasons that should be obvious: Only the scientist can know which methods he needs to serve his research question.
—–“You say earlier scientists avoided non-natural causes in science in order to maximize, optimize their answering capabilities. Excellent! Exactly this the materialists do, only with more restrictions than the early scientists.”
They avoided non-natural causes as a means of solving a problem in context, they did not mean for it to define science once and for all. Again, you ignore the purpose of science which is to answer questions about nature and solve problems. No methodology can answer all questions and solve all problems. The continuity that you hope for is there is not there.
—-“I have no problem with the notion that a design inference is an a posteriori conclusion borne out by the forensics. This is not the issue at all.”
You made quite a thing of it for a long as you could.
—-“The issue is, that ID speaks of nothing beyond the inference of a designer (not even number, so it could be multiple designers for all we know). Being a big tent means that ID can’t go beyond science.The reason I bring the Raelians is, that there is nothing to prevent someone who infers design from becoming one of them. Or a Deist 18th-century style, or a polytheist ID advocate like Cicero, or… anything. ID might as well be called ABD, for Anything But Darwinism.
Sounds good to me.
—–“I said, that I have no problem with a post factum design inference.”
Actually, you did have a problem with it for quite a while.
—–Do you accept that there are other ways to posit design?
Of course. One can perceive it through intuition in a non-scientific way. One can also “believe” it as a matter of faith.
——“OK, believing in design because the Bible says so is not an inference, and could be a tautology as you say; but why does that make it illegitimate?”
It doesn’t make it illegitimate; it just makes it something other than ID. One can posit design two ways from the Bible. According to Romans 1: and Psalm 19, God’s handiwork has been made manifest, which means that it can be perceived through the use of unaided reason. One can also simply believe in the teachings of Christianity and take design on faith. The whole point Romans 1: and Psalm 19, however, is that faith is not needed to draw a design inference. This, however, is not the same as a formal ID inference, which is consistent with, but not required by Scripture. So there are three levels of accepting design in nature: [A] (Formal) scientific inference based on empirical science (ID), [B] (Informal) perceived design inference based on reason and observation as taught in the Bible [C] Design based on religious faith, as also taught in Bible.
—–“In wishing to adhere to Greek-derived science and logic, ID works hand in glove with Darwinism in discounting (or denying altogether) the power of revelation. As I said before: ID is ecumenical to a fault.”
According to the Bible, God reveals himself in Scripture and in nature; the two revelations are consistent and mutually confirming. That ID “wishes to adhere to Greek-derived science and logic” is a characterization of yours that doesn’t capture the essence of a formal design inference. ID wishes to be reasonable, no more, no less. The Greeks did not invent logic; they simply discovered it. It has always been there for anyone who wants to use it.
Dave, Barry, etal …
It’s been interesting sitting on the sidelines and reading Barda’s comments. He is another who has come and voiced his thoughts, which we all welcome, but again it shows how many trailerloads of worldview we carry and, at times, dump onto the blogosphere.
The first issue I’d like to raise is the continung misunderstanding of what ID is and what it isn’t. (Although our beliefs do not always line up on aspects of the mechanisms, etc. we have core understandings of ID as a theory and ID as a movement) Can we have a link at the top that outlines these in a little more detail for the first-timers who don’t seem to ‘get it’.
Secondly … yes, some will not get it, but it may help those who are interested-enough to research before they start the same conversation.
Even a broader definition at this site of the parameters in which ID operates would certainly be an interesting work-in-progress.
The term ‘evolution’ works as does the concepts of the illusionist’s smoke and mirrors. Let’s define ID – as best we can – so that the evobots can continue to try and portray us as they do, but we can rest assured that the definition we apply is more or less consistent and on show … Hopefully this, with time, will provide a more solid foundation for us, here, to work from.
Hmm?
There’s a tendency to force ID into theological/religious territory (from what I’ve seen on this blog) by two distinct groups:
1) The religiously sanctimonious: those who insist that because ID has potentially divine implications, that it should be subject to the direction and control of a fundamental elite, a self-appointed religious/intellectual caste/priesthood. Gerry Rzeppa was a perfect example of this — unless ID adherents were practicing Christianity (and Intelligent Design) according to his convoluted notions of religious devotion, they were either compromisers, complacent, heretical, or Laodicean. Theistic Evolutionists are often the other part of this first category. Many of these insist that ID is bad theology and bad science at the same time, because it dares to suggest that God’s actions are detectable in tests and inferences of natural effects. This view imposes a preference for the behavior of God that is based on convenience rather than special revelation.
2) Chance worshipers: those who insist that only the study of effects with natural causes is “scientific,” and that there can exist only such causes. This group is consciously or unconsciously embarrassed that the chain of natural causes ends at a quantum singularity, for which there can only be a supernatural explanation. They attempt to conflate ID with religious creationism, in order to bully adherents into legal compliance. These must attempt to force ID theories into fully embracing their potential implications — or risk exposing the lie of materialism: that all ‘natural’ effects can be traced to natural causes.
I’m not entirely sure if Avraham is in one of these two groups, or if he is an exception to the rule; however when you factor the meat out of his arguments, they sure seem (to me) to resemble the tired old stereotype of convenience: ID = religion.
AussieID
There’s a lot of confusion about what is meant by “materialism”. Classical materialism is deader than a doornail. It was killed by quantum mechanics, particle physics, and theoretical physics. We now know there are particles which don’t take up space, have zero rest mass, and don’t obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. We have experimental proof of spooky action at a distance, particles which have identical quantum states, particles which sometimes behave as waves and are in more than one place at the same time, and all sorts of other weird stuff like everything being made of vibrating strings that exist in 10 or more dimensions. Adding insult to injury physics is incomplete as we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity. Making matters even worse we now believe that about 70% of the “stuff” that makes up the universe is some form of exotic energy which physics can’t yet describe and is called, for want of any meaningful term, dark energy. This dark energy is only known through its gravitational interaction with normal matter. It’s thought to homogenously permeate everything everywhere. Maybe “God” is made of dark energy and influences the material world through quantum gravity. Who knows. All I know is classical materialism is dead yet there are hoardes of scientists who think it’s still alive and well.
The sad part is that the people who say that ID is NOT scientific are the same people who think that happy accidents/ sheer dumb luck, is scientific- although they will deny that their position is happy accidents/ sheer dumb luck even as it is being demonstrated to them.
To Avraham Barda,
Even the anti-ID position relies on something beyond nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for it.
Thank God for AB! UD hasn’t been this much fun in months.
AB’s line of reasoning is perfectly reasonable if we keep in mind the distinction between natural curiosity and the cosmological ambition of Big Science. There’s nothing corrupt about looking at a cell and seeing what’s in it and speculating about how it works—as long as this enterprise doesn’t cause our “scientist” to become infatuated with himself and his theories.
That’s not what happens in Big Science, however—and this includes Newton and Galileo. Those who engage in Big Science want their theories to have transcendent significance. They want to be known as “scientists” who have obtained knowledge of the nature of being. This enterprise repeats the first sin and is therefore inherently corrupt, from the perspective articulated by AB.
Big Science is like the Tower of Babel. Men build themselves up in a futile attempt to diminish the difference between themselves and God. Its own ambition causes it to succumb to a confusion of languages—it is divided just like Plato and Aristotle between theory and observation, and this divide cannot be overcome.
The Tower principle is operative in this very thread. Some want ID to reflect Yahweh. Some want it to reflect an unspecified designer along the lines of the Greeks. Some don’t want it to reflect a “designer” at all—they have a Gnostic view of design. The more we talk, the less force we have. The Tower melts away at its foundations.
AB’s provocative stance has made UD readable again. Hopefully he won’t get himself booted off by the Prickly One.
Avraham:
“That really is the faith of my fathers.”
Forgive me if I’ve slighted your faith—it was not intentional. Even though we end up agreeing to disagree, you made for some lively commentary here (some 70 posts in quick order). I agree with you that God’s word is the final word—logic alone, natural law alone—none of it alone will save us from the the baby killing, marriage destroying, terrorist appeasing onslaught of modern paganism.
“Do you accept that there are other ways to posit design?”
Yes. One can establish the credibility of the Bible by its internal coherence, its lack of false assertions (it doesn’t say, for example, that the planet sits on the back of a turtle), its corroboration by archaeology, and its prophetic accuracy. We can begin, as did Isaac Newton, with the scriptural assertion that there is a Designer. But isn’t it a good thing that modern microbiology supports our faith?
If we only accept scripture for cultural or emotional reasons then we might as well be multiculturalists, for so also the pagan adheres to his scripture—including the materialist and his Communist Manifesto and Origin of Species.
Dave Scott:
“Maybe ‘God’ is made of dark energy and influences the material world through quantum gravity. Who knows.”
Fascinating! I’ve wondered about that myself. Pure coincidence, I’m sure, but the biblical kabod ‘glory’ really means ‘heavy’.
—-“Maybe ‘God’ is made of dark energy and influences the material world through quantum gravity. Who knows.”
The design principle cannot reside inside nature. If we think about it for a moment, we will understand why. In fact, all of empirical reality and all the objects of scientific enquiry are undergoing constant change. And yet, the laws that govern them are unchanging. That means that the origin of those laws must transcend nature because, if they did not, they too would be changing with everything else. Since they don’t we can safely assume a transcendent reality that governs them.
As I have understood it, correctly or incorrectly, whatever it is that makes the universe whatever it is, cannot be only in this universe.
If that were not true, then we return to getting something from nothing.
Our system is closed, but rational inference tells us another must be open.