Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[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.

[LogicWings]

No I didn't. I responded to your mischaracterization of the statement.

You said nothing, as you always do. As in this post.

[LogicWings]

I like all your fallacies, but they are not necessary.

But they are. They are the root of rational thought. As you next said:

Any thinking person can see the virtual impossibility of proving a negative.

Any thinking person. And that thought requires logic. That specifically is what is lacking, the ability to think logically, to be redundant.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post. But cutting the legs out from under a faulty proposition means that you don't have to go any further. If an assertion is Fallacious then it can be dismissed at that point. No further discussion is needed.

That is my point.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Also, it's quite obvious that a negative statement such as "there are no green mammals" can be refuted by the simple expedient of producing a green mammal.

That's fine, but the claim is "you can't prove a negative," not "you can't refute a negative" - I don't think your example refutes that claim, speaking of refutation.

Anyway, the claim itself tends to be reflective of the difficulties inherent in demonstrating the truth of universal negative propositions. If I say that there are no green unicorns, the only way to demonstrate whether that's true or not would be to undertake a detailed examination of the entire universe, looking at every portion of it simultaneously, lest the little green unicorns hide someplace I've already looked - in essence, to demonstrate to you that this proposition is true requires us both to be more or less omniscient.

Of course, some negative propositions are rather more specific - "there is no butter in my refrigerator" is somewhat easier to verify. Needless to say, all this doesn't exactly make a nice soundbite, so "you can't prove a negative" is what's remembered, despite being a bit simplistic ;)

[AndrewC]

You said nothing, as you always do. As in this post.

Then you must be habitually sparring with nothing. That is pretty much a definition of insanity. Whatever you think, my statement was still pointing out your mischaracterization of the statement.

Here is another example of your gems

There is no proof for this statement: there exists.

One cannot prove what doesn't exist - only what does exist.

Does your petard fit nicely?

[r9etb]

What you prove is you don't understand the rules of logic.

I'm not the one who spouted "you can't prove a negative."

You're now trying to wriggle out of it by trying to say that you "really" meant "you can't prove things that don't exist in the first place." But words have meaning, and your original statement made no such fine distinctions.

What the Fallacy means is that you cannot prove that which does not exist.

You're still wrong. It is possible to demonstrate that certain assumptions lead to contradictions -- the search for contradiction is an established approach to logical and mathematical proofs. For example, if one can demonstrate that an assumption X leads to a contradiction, then the conclusion is that X does not exist. E.g., I once took an abstract linear algebra class in which the denoument was a proof that a certain proposed hypercomplex construct does not exist (I can't recall off-hand if it was a 16- or 32-D construct).

This brings us to a practical difficulty: can you prove your statement? Consider: in order for your statement to be true, before we can accept the supposed inability to prove, we must accept that "that which does not exist," really does not exist. But how does one prove that it does not exist? According to the first part of your statement, we cannot provide the necessary proof, and thus your statement is seen to have no logical meaning: it is unproveable by its own terms. But once again: in at least some cases we can prove that something does not exist, and thus we see that your statement is not generally true.

But I'll throw you a bone: you may simply be saying that it's impossible to prove that something does exist, if in fact it does not exist. But again: in practical terms you're still stuck trying to prove non-existence.

This is the Fallacy of Conflation. Math is a theoretical system, not a physical one. The rules are different.

You're still trying to add conditions to your original, very general, claim. Nevertheless, math happens to have an uncanny ability to describe physical reality far better than we can sense it. For something like that, you're going to have to do a lot better than simply to state without proof that "the rules are different."

It is possible to prove a statement wrong but it is not possible to prove a fact wrong. Volcanoes exist. Rivers exist. Bears exist. Evolution exists.

Always assuming, of course, that people only state "facts." But of course many "facts" really aren't facts at all, but rather convenient approximations or even outright errors. Neither you nor I are capable of perfect knowledge about anything -- which means that neither of us has any complete "facts" at our disposal. The Theory of Evolution is a good example: despite its maintaining a consistent name, the theory itself is difficult to pin down as "fact," because its definition is subject to change -- many "evolution facts" from 1912 are considered to be erroneous today; and what's "known" today might well be tossed out in the future.

ID cannot be prove to exist. By definition.

But Intelligent Design can be proven to exist -- for example, production of human insulin using recombinant DNA techniques. This is an explicit example of intelligent design, practiced by humans. Thus it is demonstrably possible to prove ID in at least some cases. Your general statement is thus refuted by empirical evidence. Now, it's certainly valid to argue about whether or not intelligent design -- especially ancient ID -- can be detected even if it did occur. However, to state that "by definition" it cannot be detected is to surrender any claim to being scientific: you're claiming perfect knowledge, and thus no need for proof. Because you've not got the former, you lack standing to "define" anything as you have. One might be excused for thinking that you're making an ideological claim, rather than a logical and scientific one.

This is known as the "White Crow Fallacy" since it would require examining every crow in the Universe to prove there are no "White Crows." This is why in logic the Burden of Proof is upon whoever is making the Assertion.

Ah, but cute names aside you're not describing a logical fallacy, but rather a practical difficulty. Your inability and/or unwillingness to search the entire universe has no bearing on the logical truth or falsity of the statement itself. Nevertheless, it is rather easy to refute the "no white crows" claim:
.

One cannot prove one thing true by proving another thing false. Keep studying. You might understand this truth someday.

Of course, I've not attempted to prove anything except that your statements are logically unsound. I've made no claims about anything else, and thus am not impressed by your suggestions to the contrary. But I'm sure your logical wings have taken you far enough that you can recognize a red herring when you commit one.

[r9etb]

That's fine, but the claim is "you can't prove a negative," not "you can't refute a negative" - I don't think your example refutes that claim, speaking of refutation.

You speak as if the refutation of an explicit statement had no bearing on the truth or falsity of that statement. To prove a statement false means that we no longer have to behave as if it's true -- a rather important result.

The real problem is that "You can't prove a negative" is self-defeating: the statement is itself a member of the supposedly unprovable set of "negatives." At best, therefore, it's logically meaningless.

However, one can in fact produce cases whereby one proves a negative -- this is often done in mathematics, for example. The point being, of course, that you can prove a negative, at least sometimes; and thus the original, general, statement is seen to be not just meaningless, but actually false.

The upshot being that, unfortunately for some, they must actually exercise rational thought, rather than hide behind the now-refuted statement that "you can't prove a negative."

If I say that there are no green unicorns, the only way to demonstrate whether that's true or not would be to undertake a detailed examination of the entire universe, looking at every portion of it simultaneously, lest the little green unicorns hide someplace I've already looked - in essence, to demonstrate to you that this proposition is true requires us both to be more or less omniscient.

Or, I could simply hire a genetic engineer to create one.... ;-) (BTW, back to my example, there really are a few green mammals.)

Still, your example is interesting from a couple of perspectives. First, it gets most of its force from our a priori presumption that green unicorns really don't exist -- it verges on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. We'd be far less impressed by your "universal, omniscient search" if we knew exactly where to produce the green unicorn that would refute your claim to the contrary. You wouldn't get much mileage out of it if you based your example on "there are no black cows." Second, the example puts you in a position of having to define explicitly and exactly the characteristics of a "green unicorn" in such a way that your statement cannot be refuted by my simply producing any one-horned animal that happens to be green -- an oddly colored narwhal, for instance.

Be that as it may, the interesting thing about this particular topic on this particular thread is that the people committing the supposed fallacy are those who say "Intelligent Design Never Occurred."

[Thatcherite]

How would you prove the falsity of ID then?

[xzins]

Can I prove that the Koran is no word of God?

I would say that we know specifically when it came on the scene, who wrote it, and what his life and his death was like.

Showing that allah is not the God of Christians and Jews is fairly simple. Showing the murderous side of mohammed and his movement is fairly simple.

[Just mythoughts]

"Really, what evidence did He provide against a theory that didn't exist for another 1900 years?"


For people who know this physical earth is a very old ancient place, short spans of time sure are given strange significance.

Now Christ said "I have foretold you alll things", you though would have to have the mind to read with understanding, so would be pointless for me to quote scripture considering your question.

[furball4paws]

I don't disagree with you, they just don't have to be characterized. I'm not trained to look at words that way but I am trained to look for holes. I think there's a nice synergy between you and me in this.

[furball4paws]

"I would say that we know specifically when it came on the scene, who wrote it, and what his life and his death was like.

Showing that allah is not the God of Christians and Jews is fairly simple. Showing the murderous side of mohammed and his movement is fairly simple."

Yes we can show these but I don't think we can separate the God of Islam with the Judeo/Christian one. From what I've read of the Koran, I think Mohammed was more than a little crazy. But I can say that about many early (especially) Catholic Saints, too. And Christians and Jews are not unstained with blood. Mohammed says he was inspired by God. It can't be proven that he wasn't. A whole lot of people believe him, not quite as many who are Christians, but if you subtract the "squishy" Christians (much of Europe) and the fringes (Moonies, JW's, SDA's, LDS's, etc.), the numbers become eerily similar.

Nice Sunday morning stuff.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You speak as if the refutation of an explicit statement had no bearing on the truth or falsity of that statement.

I speak as though you're misstating the claim, because you are. If you can refute the claim you will show it false, but if one is unable to refute the claim, nothing whatsoever is established about its truth or falsity. The claim is that you cannot affirmatively prove a negative - you have pointed out that you can disprove a negative. Wonderful, but that's not the claim advanced.

First, it gets most of its force from our a priori presumption that green unicorns really don't exist -- it verges on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Actually, no - there is no a priori assumption about the existence or nonexistence of unicorns, merely the observation that nobody has ever observed one. Hence, if they exist, it is not likely that they exist in places humans frequent. Additionally, affirming the consequent is a formal error of logic. There is no "verges on" committing such a formal fallacy - either one does or does not commit it, and in this example, there is no such fallacy.

We'd be far less impressed by your "universal, omniscient search" if we knew exactly where to produce the green unicorn that would refute your claim to the contrary.

In other words, if you know in advance that the claim is false, you'll find it easy to refute. Pardon me if I'm not impressed ;)

[Senator Bedfellow]

Be that as it may, the interesting thing about this particular topic on this particular thread is that the people committing the supposed fallacy are those who say "Intelligent Design Never Occurred."

Sauce for the goose - the ID claim is the universal "evolution can't have happened" without a push. Everyone on this bus seems fond of negative propositions ;)

[furball4paws]

LW's use of white crow, in no way invalidates the fallacy. Albinism is common crows is "Relatively frequent" with approximately 100 sightings. In fact albinism is quite common in many birds (especially Turdus migratorius, so you can find a picture. But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative, as you know. You just chose to ignore it.

Ref. John K. Terres. 1980. The Audubon Encyclopedia of North American Birds

[LogicWings]

Then you must be habitually sparring with nothing.

Yes, precisely. You say nothing and pretend that it actually has meaning, and I point out it doesn't.

Or were you referring to yourself?

There is no proof for this statement: there exists.

Actually, I never said any such thing. You dropped the context and put in words that I never said. What I quoted was:

"There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection".

The construction that "there exists a structure or process that cannot be explained . . ." is a non-sequitur. To say "there exists" something that "cannot" be explained is simply irrational.

[LogicWings]

You're now trying to wriggle out of it by trying to say that you "really" meant "you can't prove things that don't exist in the first place." But words have meaning, and your original statement made no such fine distinctions.

No my mistake was assuming I was conversing with an educated person who understood the rules of logic and what the Fallacy "Can't Prove a Negative" actually refers to. Clearly I am not conversing with such a person.

You're still wrong.

No, I'm not, and the rest of your little homily makes the point I was elucidating. You actually verified my position without even understanding you did so.

But how does one prove that it does not exist?

One doesn't prove it "does not exist" which is why the Burden of Proof in logic and science is upon the person making the Assertion. Basic stuff you don't seem to understand. I don't have to prove it "doesn't exist" since this is impossible, you have to prove it does for it to be considered a valid assertion. Once again, basic stuff.

According to the first part of your statement, we cannot provide the necessary proof, and thus your statement is seen to have no logical meaning: it is unproveable by its own terms.

No it isn't. Logic says that you cannot provide proof for that which doesn't exist, by definition. There is no need to prove this fact, it is axiomatic, by definition.

I once took an abstract linear algebra class in which the denoument was a proof that a certain proposed hypercomplex construct does not exist.

I've already been here once, the definition excludes its existence. There are no square circles. This is not the same as asserting the Cyclops, or Bigfoot, exists. You have to provide evidence for one first for it to be considered as valid.

But again: in practical terms you're still stuck trying to prove non-existence.

I don't have to. You have the Burden of Proof to validate any assertion, otherwise it is just your fantasy. Like the ether or Mesmerism.

For something like that, you're going to have to do a lot better than simply to state without proof that "the rules are different."

Don't know what Conflation is, do you? Hand me a number. Mix me up a bowl of sums. You see, math is an abstract and whether it describes reality or not is irrelevant, it is just language. It is not the actual physical thing that is being described. That is the difference. Proving a Negative, for anyone who has studied logic, is about proving the existence of something "physical" i.e., evidence. Which is the focus of this discussion. Which you are trying so very hard to avoid. Reality.

But Intelligent Design can be proven to exist

Conflation again. ID as it is being introduced to be taught in schools concerns itself with "non-natural" sources of design.

However, to state that "by definition" it cannot be detected is to surrender any claim to being scientific: you're claiming perfect knowledge, and thus no need for proof.

The insistence that "non-natural" (or supernatural) sources of design be included as "science" means that, by definition, we are incapable of detecting them since the natural world is all we can "scientifically" detect. Just like a "square-circle" or a "16- or 32-D construct" cannot exist, neither can "non-natural" evidence. It is a contradiction in terms. If you don't see that, that is your problem. Logically, I am correct, by definition. Doesn't require my omniscience.

Ah, but cute names aside you're not describing a logical fallacy, but rather a practical difficulty.

Same thing. You just keep dodging by that Burden of Proof. And the crummy picture looks like a parakeet, not crow. Prove otherwise.

I've not attempted to prove anything except that your statements are logically unsound.

And failed. All you proved is you don't understand the rules of logic and the nature of fallacies.

[LogicWings]

would be pointless for me to quote scripture

Well, at least we agree on something.

[LogicWings]

I don't disagree with you, they just don't have to be characterized. I'm not trained to look at words that way but I am trained to look for holes. I think there's a nice synergy between you and me in this.

In content we agree. However when you say "I am trained to look for holes" you are saying the same thing I am. The "holes" are fallacies, whether you recognize this or not.

Using logic consciously is to "explicitly" use logic. To use logic (look for holes) without realizing that logic is to tool to discover such "holes" is using logic "implicitly." That is what Aristotle did, define the rules of logic that made men not animals.

Reason and logic are the tools of the human mind. Explicitly or implicitly, it is all reason, and THEREFORE, logic.

This is mostly an exercise for me, pointing out fallacies. It makes it almost automatic in my daily life. That is the purpose.

[LogicWings]

But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative

Thanks. I ran across the WCF in some paper somewhere and thought the guy explained the fallacy the Burden of Proof issue is crystal clarity. Funny how so many people just don't get it.

I'm really sorry I was too busy and didn't get on this thread from the beginning. I saw the article on TCS and thought it was excellent. By the time I got to Freeperland the thread had over 700 posts. So I just ripped off a couple of jabs. I haven't even had time to look over the whole thread. I'm sure it is great fun.

[gobucks]

"Do you assume the solutions will be naturalistic?"

I assume that since the universe had a begninning, time had a beginning.

I assume therefore, that something happened, a cause occured, before time began, to cause a series of events that lead to my view points now, including the event that caused time to begin.

So, if you are asking if I believe 'events' outside of time can be naturalistic, I say yes, I think they can be, and I have a hunch they have to be.

Another way to say this is that I'm not a pure IDer .. and I think God created the universe ... and I think he's a natural God b/c of the way he has intereacted with people via the discussions of this subject in the BiBle (B.I.B.L.E Basic Intructions Before Leaving Earth)...

When you read the Bible, some really strange, odd things, come out that you have never heard of ... like the fact a donkey talks.

Donkeys don't talk. And if I heard one talk, it would qualify as a bona fide miracle. But somehow ... I don't think I could call it supernaturalistic.

I'm in love with my wife ... at times that really provides that sensation of supernaturalism ... but again, can't call it that.

Js .... have you ever been in love?

I've done a good bit of internet surfing ... it is funny how this topic .. the 'in love' topic, has not been subject to scientific investigation. Actual scientific study, in peer reviewed journals .... it is just not out there.

You'd think for a topic so all consuming in our society, it would draw more attention.