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.

[P-Marlowe]

You therefore claimed he wrote Genesis 1 and 2 with his own hand on tablets made of stone (that's where the creations stories are).

I made no such assertion.

Why are you talking about the 10 Commandments?

The Ten Commandments were written by the hand of God on tablets of Stone (unless Moses and Jesus were both liars).

I suspect you may have never actually read the Ten Commandments, so I understand your ignorance. If you believe Moses or the Bible (or Christ's confirmation of the events) you will note that the following statement was written by the hand of God upon the Stone Tablets which Moses brought down from the mountain:

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. (Exodus 20:11 KJV)

Do you happen to believe what God wrote with his own hand? Was God mistaken? Or was Moses a fraud? If Moses was a fraud, did he fool Jesus as well? Wouldn't that make Jesus a fool?

[JohnnyM]

Did Jesus walk on water?
Did Jesus resurrect Lazarus?
Did Jesus turn water into wine?
Did Jesus heal a blind man?
Did Jesus rise from the dead?

What makes these events any more reliable/plausible than the ones you mentioned (assuming you are a Christian)?

JM

[Junior]

Since when does God speak of Himself in the third person? That passage sounds more like someone speaking for God.

[Antonello]

But this is an invalid test, since the creationists did not claim to be able to classify species simply by a single fossil (in this case a skull), and I'm sure they would agree that they could not. Classification is based on more than just a single fossil or a skull.

Are you saying that, given nothing more than a skull to work with, a forensic anthropologist would not be able to distinguish between a modern chimp skull and a modern human one?

[Junior]

...since the creationists did not claim to be able to classify species simply by a single fossil ...<> But they most certainly did. That matrix was culled from their own assertions that each fossil was either a man or an ape.

[Sofa King]

"Im sure there are differences in certain organs and the like, but I couldn't tell which ones and how so."

Then you should consult a zoologist on just how different they are before just being sure of it.

"Our brains are different sizes."

Once again, you can tell the size of an animals brain by examining the skull which contains it. This is even more rudimentary than determining muscle structure.

"Our nose and ears are different."

No so much.



The ears are almost exactly like ours, aside from being a little larger in proportion to the skull- but this is only consistant with most of a human's facial features as compared to a chimp that can be seen from the skull. The nose appears to be flatter, but that is mostly because the chimp's skull protrudes much more in that area.

(By the way: here is a picture of a chimp skull. Do you really think you would find it difficult to differentiate between it and a human skull? Notice how small the brain casing is.)

[P-Marlowe]

Did Methuselah really live to be 969 years old?

Yes.

Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego really walk in the fire.

Yes

Did one man, Noah, really build a boat large enough to contain two of every species and the food required to feed them for 40 days and the time afterwards required for the waters that covered the Earth to receed?

No one ever said he did it alone. I suspect he had help. But then he did have 120 years to complete the task. That's less than 10 linear feet of boat per year.

And when the water receeded, where did it go? Since all the Earth was covered with water, it couldn't have gone into the oceans, since they were already filled with water. Where did the water go?

You don't believe in miracles, do you? Did Jesus heal a man born blind? Did Jesus walk on water? Did Jesus turn water into wine? Did Jesus rise from the dead?

BTW Jesus confirmed the story of Noah. Was Jesus mistaken? Was Jesus a fraud? Or was he misquoted?

Don't confuse Bible stories with God's works. They can be very different.

Don't confuse your unbelief with faith.

[Junior]

Because both claimed they were direct revelations from the God...

Why did the Hebrews need to be told these things by God, but other societies were able to work it out for themselves?

You see, we have numerous data points of other societies coming up with similar codes; why should we accept Divine intervention for the Hebrew version? Simply because a book says that's the way it was?

Would that you were to examine your personal beliefs as thoroughly as you claim to examine scientific findings.

[ml1954]

When God wrote with his own hand on tablets of stone that in six days He made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" was he lying or just mistaken?

Genesis was written on tablets of stone? I thought it was the commandments.

[Sofa King]

Images that work:

[Junior]

The underlying truth is the rules for living together with your neighbors. Jesus spoke in parables, which were both true and fictional.

[Antonello]

Genesis was written on tablets of stone? I thought it was the commandments.

No, stone sounds about right.

[P-Marlowe]

Genesis was written on tablets of stone? I thought it was the commandments.

That statement about the six day creation comes from the Ten Commandments (Exodus Chapter 20).

Have you read them?

[Junior]

Would you be unreservedly dedicated to not making a profit under any circumstance whatsoever?

To the same extent as Jimmy Swaggart, you betcha.

[Sofa King]

More fun with pictures:

Human skull

Chimp skull

Notice the protursion of bone where the human nose starts. Notice how the chimp doesn't have that.

[MindBender26]

There you go posting pictures of Mrs. Kerry again, before the facelift and excess hair removal.

[zeeba neighba]

Just lurking, passing thru. Creationists are awesome, respectful and logical. Evolutionists are losing on the issues and resorting to name calling.

lying, clownish, worthless, cowardly troll who can't spell, think, or understand logic? just one comment, proving point

[ml1954]

That statement about the six day creation comes from the Ten Commandments (Exodus Chapter 20).

Nothing in there about Genesis being written on stone tablets. Did you make that up?

[xzins]

The underlying truth is the rules for living together with your neighbors. Jesus spoke in parables, which were both true and fictional.

So, they lied about a guy named Moses meeting God, they lied about God giving him tablets, they lied about God writing commandments on those tablets, and they lied about this happening on Mt Sinai...

BUT.....

The moral code introduced by all this fiction is true?

To be honest with you, there is nothing provably true within that code.

It really doesn't make any difference if I steal your wife, your money, and your donkey.

If I get away with it, tough luck for you.

If I don't, tough luck for me. The world goes on.

Those rules don't mean sh_t unless God gave them.

[Dimensio]

My point being that the laws and the waves that we encounter in life have a logical and intelligent use to them.

That "point" wasn't very clear from your incoherent rambling.

The being is the Author of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Zoology, etc.

So you assert, but you've not provided a single bit of evidence to support your claim.

The major problem of evolution is that it operates within a finite boundary while dismissing things that are infinite and transcendent.

So your criticism of evolution is that it confines itself to a specific scope and doesn't make supernatural claims, exactly like every other theory in science?

While evolutionist have the process of life taking so many billions of years, creationists who believe in an infinite God realize that the whole process could have taken one day or one hour.

Why do you discount theists who accept the theory of evolution? Are they inconvenient to your talking points?

Why six days? For our benefit in order to give us a pattern for work. In regards to age, everything was designed mature.

So the universe isn't really billions of years old, it just looks that way to anyone who analyzes the physical evidence rationally. Can you support this claim with evidence, or do you think that your conjecture should be taken as absolute established fact?