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.

[Sofa King]

"(one can literally trace the copies by the presence of typographical errors)"

Now that's irony!

[Ichneumon]

Now that's irony!

You're Sofa King right!

[Sofa King]

"For example, if you saw an ape and a human, you could tell the two apart very easily, but if you saw an ape skull and a human skull without their "outer shell" it would be much harder to classify."

Taking aside structural differences between a human and a chimp which can be judge from a skeleton, what is the major difference between a human's "outer shell" and an chip's "outer shell" aside from a greater amount of hair?

[oblomov]

Interesting discussion. freeandfreezing, you make some excellent points about the holes in natural selection theory, and some of the examples you cite have been used to revise evolutionary theory from being a purist natural selection approach toward one incorporating elements of Lamarckism, and one that rejects gradualism in favor of Gouldian "punctuated equilibrium".

Interestingly, I know of no researchers today who can accurately define a test which can identify biological entities designed and created in labs by humans, which one would assume would be "intelligently" designed. If you can't identify a living genetically engineered and created organism how would you expect to know if other organisms were or were not "intelligently designed"?

The vast majority of scientists believe in God and do not have difficulty reconciling their work with their faith. I recall Carl Sagan saying something to the effect that his examination of the universe reinforced his faith in God rather than challenging it. Science is, by necessity, materialist, and it has to ignore teleological explanations, relying instead on what is observable and measurable. It is an approach to understanding the universe that is not necessarily a full understanding, but one that is helpful by making exploration, discussion, and discovery possible, rather than accepting arguments from authority. The risk is, some ill-informed people (who might reject religion for personal reasons, or just not understand the scientific method) inevitably reduce evolution to believing something like:

"life must have begun as a result of a lot of random molecular interactions which ultimately ended up producing a living organism"

This is an idea that is predicated on faith also, and is not something supported by science, if by "random" one means "without order" (instead of "order beyond our comprehension").

The idea of a Creator is not inconsistent with the idea of natural selection or other evolutionary theories. Although ID poses some good challenges to natural selection, they are metaphysical challenges, thus outside the realm of science. I don't say this to elevate science above other worthy fields.

Instead of schools wasting time fighting over what shallow "theory" or "fact" they teach, they should make an effort to teach the students about what the various theories really mean, and how one might go about testing, understanding or evaluating them. Hopefully those students will go on to advance our understanding of our world and how life began.

I could not agree more. And what could be more conservative than to teach that ideas have consequences? The problem is, this supposes that school boards and parents see the education of their children as a good, rather than seeing the schools as the instrument of this or that ideology.

JMHO.

[P-Marlowe]

Maybe the guy who wrote the story made up the part about God writing it with His own hand.

That indeed is a viable possibility, isn't it. I have no problem with atheists or agnostics or hindus or Bhuddists who deny that God created the heavens and the earth. If in fact God did not create the heavens and the earth, then my faith is in vain.

I have a lot of problems with people who claim to believe in the God of the Bible, yet doubt the veracity of the very Bible that describes the God they claim to believe in.

If in fact the words on the Ten Commandments were just made up by men, then both Jesus and Moses were either frauds or fantasies. But if the story in Exodus is true, then God did indeed make the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days. Now we can argue as to what the meaning of "day" is, but it is clear that the description of creation in Genesis and it's confirmation in Exodus 20 contradicts any notion that the macro species we see on earth all evolved from some primitive (as yet to be identified) one celled randomly generated life form. It also contradicts any notion that man evolved from some lower life form, as man is specifically mentioned as a special creation of God.

I just don't countenance those who claim to believe the Bible, but can't seem to get past the first verse. If you can't get past the first verse of God's revealed word, then for God's sake, put it down and quit pretending to be a believer.

[Rudder]

We are all furry little beasts in human suits.

[Junior]

If in fact the words on the Ten Commandments were just made up by men, then both Jesus and Moses were either frauds or fantasies.

Considering nearly identical* "rules for living" were around before the 10 Commandments, and that many different societies around the world came up with these rules independently, why would you even think that a fictionalized account of how the Hebrews arrived at the same rules means that Jesus or Moses were frauds or fantasies?

*Aside from the first couple of commandments, the rest are simply common sense measures to allow people to live together peacefully.

[JohnnyM]

There are things like skin color and musculature, but what I meant by outer shell was more of a full representation of the specimen with his flesh and all. So skeletal structure and body posture would apply to the classification. I can recognize a human from an ape with no problem. I can even recognize a severed human head from a severed ape head, what I may not be able to classify is a human skull and an ape skull.

JM

[RightWingNilla]

Someone who doesn't know the difference between wavelength and frequency...

Its an alternative viewpoint you Darwinian fascist!

[Dumb_Ox]

ID is certainly a theory of natural philosophy--a nineteenth century theory, in fact. In current practice, science classes are a form of natural philosophy bracketed by certain methods of discovery. Though I think intelligent design as currently advanced has severe flaws of its own, since its advocates and detractors can't quite decide if it's science, theology, or natural philosophy, I don't think this guy's taxonomy justifies forbidding ID from science class.

[conserv371]

What gets me is that we have no problem saying that people invented cars and computers but woe be the person that says some life form invented us and the matter around us. I think it is like when people thought everything revolved around the earth until later we found out that our puny, little planet revolved around the sun. More and more people are realizing that macro-evolution has huge problems and that this universe does not exist by chance.
I am waiting for the day when the ACLU demand the title history be changed because of the religious connotation which stands for "His story"--that's why everything is B.C. or A.D. (Before Christ or Anno Domine "In the year of our Lord")

[Junior]

The art of reconstructing the "flesh" of skeletal remains has advanced light years in the past few decades. Nowadays, computers are fed the data and can reconstruct not only the appearance, but the stance of the individual (if hip/thigh are available).

[JohnnyM]

simply from a fossilized bone? Does it use DNA?

JM

[Junior]

More and more people are realizing that macro-evolution has huge problems...

Really? Name a couple. I bet those "problems" extend from a lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution, and not from the theory itself.

[Junior]

No. It uses the same technology forensic anthropologists use to recreate the faces of crime victims.

[Ichneumon]

Maybe the guy who wrote the story made up the part about God writing it with His own hand. Naw, that would never cross your mind, would it?

Or maybe he's misunderstanding the passage. That doesn't seem to occur to enough folks either.

Even the Vatican has managed to badly misread Scripture:

"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".

And:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)

If the Vatican get get Scripture so freaking wrong when they read it, I have even less confidence in the textual interpretations of amateurs.

This is why Galileo himself wrote -- very sensibly:

"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by the creationists of the day] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo Galilei

Sadly, a lot of folks even today are stuck back in the 1600's when it comes to how they try to find the truth about how the world works.

[JohnnyM]

my question is in regards to Ichy's post. It seems, and correct me if i'm wrong, that scientists and other individuals are attempting to classify a singleton fossil, such as a skull as either ape or human. Due to similarities in skeletal structure would it not make this classification much more difficult? If, however, the skull was attached to a full skeleton or, better yet, still had its flesh and musculature in tact, classification would be much easier?

JM

[music_code]

Romans 1:18-25, as always, is appropriate to quote in these discussions:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


I quote this not because I have any illusions about you reading it and changing your worldview - you are obviously quite proud of it and have no intention of leaving it - but because in your post you say this:

"What I believe is that most creationists that I have observed are liars."

When the discussion comes to the point of who is lying, it is of little value to point at each other and declare that the other party is lying, unless you can appeal to the Ultimate Authority Source and see what the Truth is. Then you can see whose ideas and statements line up with revealed truth, and whose do not.

What is the ultimate lie? That there is no God.

What does evolution teach? That there is no God.

Therefore, anyone who accepts the philosophy/religion of evolution is embracing a lie. Some parrot the evolution mantra with little or no research of their own and so cannot be said to be "liars" in a strict sense. Then of course, there are others who actively promote the dogmas of evolution, who research it, defend it, "explain" it, etc. These people do not act in ignorance as the former group, and thus can appropriately be called "liars" - because they knowingly embrace a lie. I say knowingly, because you can't get very far into the whole religion of evolution without realizing that it is inherently anti-God, and thus early on you must make the choice to pursue what you know to be a godless idea, or not.

[dread78645]

XenuDidit placemark

[Junior]

Scientists aren't trying to classify anything as ape or human. Technically, humans are apes (tailless primates with grasping hands and brachiating arms). It's the anti-evos who make the distinction and then try to shoehorn the various skulls into either one category or the other.