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.
There seems to be a common theme here.
Should I quote the same translations about slavery?
If you think the 6 day creation translations are literal and correct and consistent, then you must think the slavery translations are literal and correct and consistent and that slavery is OK with God. Do you think slavery is OK with God?
We outgrew our old facility/church building (also in bad repair), and have been amidst a building program that's been really intense the last 3 months and has about 3 more to go.
You have then, I assume, a copy of that church’s operating budget? You know, rounded off to the nearest dollar, the details of the church’s expense line items: their utilities cost, security, maintenance, snow removal (in Houston snow removal probably does not have its own exclusive line like it might in Wynot), office supplies, etc, etc, etc? Their capital sinking fund? Their employee costs? The nature and extent of the cost of the church’s charitable and missionary activities?
By the way, what is the denomination of that church? That would need to be known to understand how the church is governed. If you believe that “young wippersnapper” [sic] is receiving a tax-free salary from the church, please explain exactly how that works. Does he just distribute it to himself? Did he likewise just appoint himself CEO, or did a governing board make those decisions? Are there others who are the grateful recipients of a tax-free earnings distribution? Can you name them? Can you explain why other givers to the church silently suffer such an obvious inequality, or maybe you can report ominous rumblings of discontent?
And, if you “can do that” (create such an amazing church), why don’t you? Can you describe how that church originally came to be, how it grew to its present remarkable seize, and how it came to occupy its present location at The Summit in Greenway Plaza? Or are you just taking cheap shots at a high silhouette target?
"The normal stuff: don't yell at the other drivers, don't piss off your wife -- and my all-time favorite: "What did you expect? You brought that on yourself."
Amazing, He told me the same thing this morning. I didn't get the same impression about His ethnicity though.
Knock yourself out.
Great on the growth! God bless you.
Knock yourself out.
If you think the 6 day creation translations are literal and correct and consistent, then you must think the slavery translations are literal and correct and consistent and that slavery is OK with God. Do you think slavery is OK with God?
Thank you, and we appreciate all prayer on our behalf.
Done and continued.
I don't see that he ever prohibited it. He did set up rules for the proper treatment of slaves. God sent the Nation of Israel into slavery on several occasions. God obviously approved of the Hebrews being enslaved since he arranged for it to take place.
What is this thing you have about slavery? I suspect that all of us are descended from slaves. God allowed it to take place throughout history. We live in a blessed time where slavery is the exception rather than the rule. But even where it was the rule, God was still on the throne.
The creationists reveal ignorances in other than biology.
There are even more not against slavery. Seems to be getting popular on FR among the creationists.
Did anyone here say they favor slavery? The question was whether or not God "approved" of slavery. Since God made provision for the treatment of slaves, it is clear that he did not prohibit it. Nor did he require it.
I expected better arguments from you, Doc. Jumping on the "creationists love slavery" bandwagon is evidence of a vacuous position.
BD, it seems that comment was directed at you.
I'm thinking that the sentiment is in regards to the liberal foundations started by these men.
Armand Hammer was an industrialist. Was he a capitalist?
Wow! That much? Hope you’re paying all your taxes. But, by all means, use every legal tax-dodge you can, just like I’m sure Jimmy did. It was Justice Hughes (I think him) who observed in a majority legal opinion that every taxpayer is obliged to pay only the minimum tax legally calculated, and not obliged to pay such a sum as might be calculated to maximize tax liability.
Since you’ve seen fit to specifically mention Jimmy Swaggart, may it be assumed you have documents detailing Mr. Swaggart’s income for various reporting years, and disclosing the amount of taxes paid? It’s estimated that Mr. Swaggart’s ministry earned $150mil annually during his peak years. Is that about right? How much taxes did he pay? How much did he illegally avoid? C’mon, you can tell us.
Oh Patrick, you Mouth of Darwin Central - I didn't think you had it in you.
Opens up whole new vistas.
What does that have to do with science? Science doesn't care if you don't like the implications you see in its facts - science isn't outcome-based like PC creationism.
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.