Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
2005-12-20 -- If you've participated in online debates about the theory of evolution, you know the standard arguments of evolutionists. Their "trump card" is the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) theory is simply outside the realm of science. This claim is not that ID has insufficient empirical corroboration, although they often make that claim too. This claim is that ID is not even a valid scientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable."
The notion that ID theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.
Consider first the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist." If a spaceship landed on earth carrying aliens from another planet, this hypothesis would obviously be disproved or "falsified." If an intelligent message were indisputably received from a non-man-made source in space, that would also disprove the hypothesis. Hence, this hypothesis clearly meets the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "scientific" according to Popper's definition.
Now consider the opposite hypothesis, namely that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists." How could this hypothesis be falsified? The only way to falsify it would be to prove that absolutely no intelligent life exists anywhere in the entire universe other than on (or from) earth. Because that is obviously impossible to prove, this hypothesis fails the falsifiability criterion and is therefore "unscientific."
According to Popper's criterion, therefore, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist" is "scientific," but the opposite hypothesis, that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists," is not. But if the former "scientific" hypothesis is disproved, then the latter "unscientific" hypothesis is obviously proved! Hence, a hypothesis about the natural world can be proved true yet still be "unscientific" according to Popper's criterion. Popper's definition of science is therefore misleading if not just plain nonsensical.
Popper's followers readily concede that what they call an "unscientific" hypothesis can be true. For example, the hypothesis, "nutritional supplements can improve a person's health," is "unscientific," yet it is also certainly true. The problem is that their misleading technical definition of science is used by evolutionists to deceive the public about ID theory. Hence, a substantial percentage of the public has been fooled into believing that, because ID theory is "unscientific" (according to Popper), it must also be untrue or bogus.
Several years ago the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) project was initiated. Large radio telescopes were used to receive radio signals from space, and massive computing facilities were used to analyze those signals in search of "intelligent" messages that could be presumed to have originated from an "intelligent" life form. Apparently, nobody informed the SETI team that their motivating hypothesis -- that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" -- is "unscientific"!
Suppose an apparently "intelligent" message were detected by SETI. The first question would be whether the message really originated from space and not from a man-made source, but suppose a man-made source could be ruled out. The next question would be whether the message really originated from an intelligent source, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke that only appeared to have come from an intelligent source.
Suppose the message contained the first 100,000 binary digits of pi, repeated indefinitely, with each repetition separated by a "spacer" of 1000 zeros. Now, one cannot "prove" with absolute mathematical certainty that such a sequence cannot occur by random chance, but most reasonable people would agree that the probability would be extremely low. In fact, most would agree that the probability of a such a signal originating from an "unintelligent" source would be zero for all intents and purposes.
The repeating pi signal coming from a non-man-made source in space would therefore conclusively prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and it would prove it even if the location and identity of the source were never determined. But according to Popper's falsifiability criterion, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" does not even qualify as "scientific." Thus, SETI would be in the strange position of having proved a truly monumental -- but "unscientific" -- fact about the universe!
The hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence can shed some badly needed light on the philosophical debate over whether or not intelligent design theory is "scientific." The philosophical question is not about how much order or complexity is needed to reasonably prove the existence of Intelligent Design; that is a scientific and mathematical question. The philosophical question is whether any amount of evidence for ID could be enough to get evolutionists to concede that it ID is even a possible explanation. Apparently the answer is no, because they have ruled ID "out of bounds" from the start.
Evolutionists often point out that ID theory "makes no testable predictions and explains nothing." But what "testable predictions" can be made based on the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? None. So, what do evolutionists say about the potential for intelligent messages from deep space? Do they insist that such messages wouldn't prove anything and should simply be ignored? I doubt the SETI team would agree with that, yet it is the logical equivalent of the evolutionist position on ID. The irony is that evolutionists would probably be the first to embrace the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence because it would transform the origin of life from a "miracle" to a "statistic," as Carl Sagan once explained. Indeed, most or all of the SETI participants probably are evolutionists!
Both professional and amateur evolutionists will continue to arrogantly asert that ID theory cannot possibly be "scientific." If a famous philosopher said it, apparently that's all the "proof" they need -- common sense notwithstanding. And that's just the start of their many ridiculous assertions. After explaining that ID is "unfalsifiable," many evolutionists then proceed to explain that it has indeed been falsified anyway! "It can't be done, but by golly we did it anyway just to reassure ourselves"! And the significance of the fact that their premise and their conclusion are identical apparently escapes them.
Another popular evolutionist canard is that ID theory is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" cover for Biblical creationism and is therefore unscientific. Never mind that many ID advocates were originally evolutionists before they studied the matter in depth. By the same "logic," evolution could be considered a "thinly veiled" cover for atheism, of course. Nonsense. Both atheists and creationists may indeed be biased, but attributed biases are never directly relevant to the actual validity of any scientific theory. The validity of Einstein's theory of relativity is completely independent of whatever personal biases he may have had!
In any significant online debate over evolution, some genius will inevitably proclaim that Intelligent Design theory is meaningless until the actual "Intelligent Designer" is physically located and identified. That is logically equivalent to claiming that the pi signal mentioned above would not prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence until the source of the message was explicitly located and identified. A related and equally absurd notion is that purely naturalistic evolution must remain the accepted theory until the "Designer" can be understood and explained scientifically. That is the logical equivalent of a prosecutor claiming that a criminal defendant must be presumed guilty unless or until another culprit is found. The truth is that, just as a defendant can be exonerated before an alternative suspect is identified, purely naturalistic evolution can be disproved before an alternative theory is fully understood or even available.
The point here is not that ID theory is true and purely naturalistic evolution is false. The point is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue, and both positions should be respectfully permitted to co-exist in the spirit of free and open inquiry. That is not what is happening today. A misleading definition of science is being used to exclude ID a priori. A judge recently ruled that even mentioning ID is prohibited in the science classes of a particular public school system. That kind of censorship is certainly more in the spirit of the Soviet Union than of the United States. Professors have been publicly censured by their peers for espousing ID. One can only wonder if Isaac Newton would be censured today for his professed belief in the intelligent design of the universe.
Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.
http://RussP.us/IDscience.htm
Depends what definition of "intelligent design" we're using, as there doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted definition, upon review.
With that said, stripped of its "alternative to the ToE" baggage, the phrase "intelligent design" certainly applies to the products of genetic engineering, or any other item produced by man.
But stripped of its "alternative to the ToE" baggage, "intelligent design" becomes rather mundane in an empirical kind of way, inasmuch as it is understood how things are made, anything anyone has ever made can be reproduced by anybody else, and the supernatural doesn't enter into the picture.
Judge Jones decided to push the envelope for the reading pleasure of the higher courts, alas not in the Dover case, which is not being appealed, but in other cases, such as Cobb. It I think will do his cause more harm than good. He went way over the top it appears, and stuck his foot in his mouth. But then the trial court judge in Cobb indulged in the same thing, in a more modest way, and the 11th circuit was not pleased.
The reviewers were people Behe himself suggested.
"The problem isn't evolution it IS having compulsory attendance, compulsory tax funded government schools."
I agree completely. The same principle applies to prayer in schools. The solution is not to mandate prayer in public schools, but to give parents the option of choosing an appropriate private school without having to "pay twice." That means school vouchers at a minimum.
What I find ironic is that secular humanists are so worried about having public schools degraded with even a mention of ID, yet the private schools that are not so restrained do a far better job of educating their students.
Catholic schools actually teach evolution, but they TEACH!
That is a big difference.
"Catholic schools actually teach evolution, but they TEACH!"
And public schools are free of ID, but they DON'T teach!
Separation of School and State? Works for me!
I don't think the matter of teaching sound science is open to negotiation in private or public schools. You talk about evolution like it is a matter of opinion or ideology subject to argument and if it somehow offends someone they shouldn't be forced to learn evolution. I don't think there should be a choice to learn or not to learn about evolution. Would we negotiate teaching the Pythagoran Theorum because it is "only a theorum" or maybe because it offends someone? Or how about the theory of gravity because someone believes there is no gravity because the earth sucks? Suggesting negotiation implies doing the "politically correct" thing. Sorry, I can't do that.
And I think public vs. private schools is irrelevant to the ID issue. Public schools are going not going away. They've been here for a great many years and will likely be around for a great many more. That's just the way it is, but that's getting into a totally different discussion.
I'll repost one of my own from a few days ago, because it illustrates a related point.
In an immediate sense ID theory embraces the genetic engineering initiatives being carried out in thousands of laboratories worldwide today. Suppose a new strain of a formerly harmless bacteria were to emerge that possesses startling quantum leap pathogenic qualities that targets specific racial or ethnic groups (analogous to discovering a strain of E. Coli that produces human insulin), would it be important to know whether it had been genetically engineered?
Materialist Darwinists would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "My, isn't it impressive what natural selection can accomplish!" Then they would publish endless dull turgid a priori justifications about how this newly discovered mutation was really natural selection, Dawkins' "blind watchmaker" at work.
More practical people might start looking at the forensic evidence to see how it might fit a hypothesis that a laboratory somewhere was up to no good, engaging in a bit of intelligent design to cleanse the human race of "undesirable" racial or ethnic groups.
This has already been alleged in connection with the AIDS virus. The idea sounded wild and tinfoilish when it was first raised, partly because the known science and technology in the 1970s and 1980s were considered inadequate to the task of genetically engineering a virus in that manner and partly because biogeneticists believed the modification of the virus was small and subtle enough to be adequately explained by random selection.
But today it is easy to posit a genetic change so immediate, so fundamental, and so radical that the best inference for its origin is genetic engineering in a well-equipped laboratory somewhere.
If that should happen today, who in our country would be allowed to investigate the possibility that the change was genetically engineered (intelligently designed) for a specific purpose? Publicly funded laboratories would run the risk of igniting the ire of the ACLU and sympathetic judges desperate to keep the foolish idol of Natural Selection enthroned as god.
Perhaps Judge Jones would allow a publicly-funded laboratory to test the evidence forensically against a hypothesis of genetic engineering (intelligent design) versus dumb natural selection. First, he would have to be persuaded that none of the laboratory personnel was a religious believer, especially (heaven forbid) a Christian.
Life can be considered a von Neumann machine that has a set of solutions--its programs--written into DNA. The solutions may stay dormant, develop gradually, or be triggered by environment or other factors into releasing exponential and dramatically complex changes, Behe's "black boxes." The strategy fits well with the theory of punctuated equilibrium through the mechanism of natural selection.
Such a strategy would enable the programmer to achieve his goals over long periods of time without having to actually intervene physically from moment to moment.
He is not a legislature. He was not charged with fixing the real problem.
Really? So ID wouldn't dispute the possibility that life on Earth was seeded and manipulated by Ancients from the Pegasus galaxy. But then where did the Ancients come from? They're presumably even more advanced than humans, and therefore couldn't have arisen via natural processes either, right? At some point a supernatural entity is required. Or does ID claim that while humans couldn't have evolved naturally, it's possible that different life forms of equal or greater complexity could have?
"Edward O. Wilson in a recent essay sought to dismiss ID theory as unscientific on the grounds that it requires a supernatural agent. It most emphatically does NOT require a supernatural agent, ..."
I think ID *does* require a supernatural agent, but I don't think that's a legitimate reason to dismiss it. Such a dismissal would amount to a mere assumption. And we all know what we do when we ass-u-me, don't we.
What if a supernatural agent *does* exist, but we simply dismiss the possibility. Imagine how embarrassing that will ultimately prove to be!
Isaac Newton believed stongly in a supernatural agent. So did James Clerk Maxwell, Joseph Faraday, Lord Kelvin, and Louis Pasteur. The list of great scientists who were devout Christians goes on and on.
Who are modern evolutionists to simply rule out the possibility of a supernatural agent whose existence and influence can be detected through the study of nature?
Your argument is well-made but is in the wrong arena. Science requires physical world explanations. To use the crutch of magic basicall means science throws up its hands and says "it's too hard! Boo hoo. "
ID belongs in religion/mythology/philosophy.
I believe that God put this whole thing in motion. But He, in His Infinite Wisdom, established rules for the Universe. We are just detecting the very first of them. But to suggest that God cut corners just to create people or anything else diminishes His Glory and is intellectually bankrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.