Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.
To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?
In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).
One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.
So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.
What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.
If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.
I find something deeply troubling about the fact that a creationist has to ask why he or she is expected to back up his or her claims with evidence.
You got me. It's been a while since I have read Exodus; usually when you see the Ten Commandments posted all that is written is the Commandments.
As for the rest of your questions, no I don't believe that God actually wrote them. I don't believe in the God of the Bible anymore. I'll back out of this theological discussion and stick with the science.
Hope that clears things up.
Societies based on such principals don't work. They are out-competed very effectively by societies that promote co-operation. Easy when you think about it, and mathematically demonstrable. Try googling the "repeated prisoner's dilemma" to see why benefits accrue from *not* picking the option with the biggest payoff all the time, if that option involves screwing your neighbour. Oddly enough the creationist's arch-demon Dawkins has done a lot of work in this area in his guise as a real biologist, rather than a pop-biologist.
As I've pointed out on this very thread, rules for living together are so important people throughout the world came up with comparable systems without Divine intervention. Attributing such rules to the Almighty might make them more palatable to those unable or unwilling to think rationally (which, unfortunately, is the great majority of the species), but that does not necessarily make them Divinely inspired.
See 284
Remember, 79 percent of all statistics are just made up.
That statement about the six day creation comes from the Ten Commandments (Exodus Chapter 20).
I see your point. While Genesis wasn't written on stone tablets the commandments reference it.
Where did I say that Genesis was written upon stone tablets?
OK, maybe the third time is the charm. Listen closely:
The Ten commandments were written in stone by the hand of God. The Ten Commandments are stated in Exodus chapter 20. On the tablets of stone the following statement was written:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Now you can either believe that God spoke those words or you can deny that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
Maybe it's all a bunch of hokey. Fine, I can understand someone who believes that the whole Moses saga is just a bunch of hokey. what I can't understand is how those who believe that is a bunch of Hokey can claim to believe in Jesus, who confirmed the factual basis for the whole story of Genesis from Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Moses, to Jonah, to Daniel.
So if you don't believe that God gave that statement to Moses, then don't pretend you believe in the Jesus of the Bible or even the God of the Bible. Find a new God. Worship him, or her, or it.
This is not my field, but I think that the author is completely wrong. Einstein didn't predict the existence of any new planets. The author is apparently referring to the use of General Relativity to help explain the the orbit of Mercury.
So, if you weren't restrained by your belief in God you'd feel competely justified in doing whatever immoral behaviour entered your head. To quote you, "It doesn't matter at all" if God doesn't exist. Can you please notify your local police department of your lack of an innate moral sense, in case you ever get a crisis of faith. I sure hope that I don't live near you, I'd be really worried that something might shake your faith in God and then you might murder me if you wanted my possessions or my wife, as apparently your faith is the only thing stopping you from such acts.
see 288.
Let's not pretend it isn't happening. Every bit of research says it is....and a lot.
Society is thriving as it always has.
It only matters when the individual gets his turn to stand before God.
Another implication in this belief is that creationists are not acting good because it is the right thing to do, but simply because they want rewards in an afterlife, or at least to avoid punishment.
If there is no God, then there is no morality.
Ever wonder why atheistic socialism had no problem murdering millions?
So if you don't believe that God gave that statement to Moses...
I just conceded your point regarding Exodus 20 just before this post. However, since we're on the topic of Exodus, what do you think about Exodus 21?
Cool
While Genesis wasn't written on stone tablets the commandments reference it.
Exactly. What the Ten Commandments do is to confirm the factual basis for the story in Genesis Chapter 1. So if you are to keep the commandments, you have to accept the factual basis of the Creation account.
If there is no factual basis for the Creation story in Genesis, then that would make God a liar (and a violator of his own commandment not to bear false witness).
Did God lie?
Or are the Ten Commandments just a bunch of spiritual hokey?
Or is there a possibility that what God stated in Exodus Chapter 20 is the God's honest truth?
YEC INTREP
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.