Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
I have been interested in the intelligent design (ID) movement for some time now because of its implications in the relations between science and religion, two areas of interest of mine. I will read something from ID proponents like Michael Behe and his arguments are convincing to me, it seems that ID does have some scientific merit. Then I will read something from ID opponents like Ken Miller and he will convince me that Behe is wrong, that ID is not scientific at all. I keep going back and forth on this point and I am not fully convinced either way. So I wanted to start this thread for the specific purpose of addressing the question as to whether or not ID is scientific.
First let my start by saying that I do not think there is any uniform standard as to what makes something scientific or not. There is disagreement among scientists and philosophers of science as to what qualifications and standards something has to meet in order to be labeled as science. And this is essential to the question, we cannot determine whether ID is scientific or not without having a definition of what makes a thing or theory scientific. And so my first questions will be in regard to how we should define science? What criterion and standards should we use? Etc.
Even with the difficulties presented by not having a clear definition of science I would still like to play devils advocate and argue that ID is scientific. I propose to do this by comparing it to well established sciences and scientific practices to show that the arguments and inferences of ID are not so different from well established sciences.
First it must be noted that the arguments for ID are all based on indirect of evidence. The claim by ID is not that the designer can be directly examined but that the presence of a designer can be inferred based on its effects that we observe today. In this way I feel that the argument against ID that it is not scientific because it is not falsifiable, fails. In my understanding it is claimed that ID is not falsifiable because the designer is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, we can never directly observe the designer so we can never falsify the theory. This, in one sense, is true. Science cannot directly observe God and so no matter what science discovers a person of faith can always claim that God is the creator of all things. But, ID is not basing its arguments on direct observation of the creator/designer. I will now give several examples from established sciences of a similar sort of indirect evidence to show that this sort of reasoning and inference from effect to cause is scientific.
Black holes, by there very nature, cannot be directly observed. Nothing can escape the gravitational pull of black holes, not even light. Astronomers must examine the effects that the presence of a black hole has on nearby objects to then infer that the black hole exists and is causing the effects that are observed. By their very nature black holes, like the designer, cannot be directly observed. Now one way that black holes could be dismissed is by developing a hypothesis for some other phenomena that can account for all the effects caused by what we now call black holes. And so black holes, like ID, can be falsified by showing that the effects that are observed can have a better explanation. This I will call the weak sense of falsification. But perhaps I fail to understand exactly what falsification means. Let me just say that it is debatable as to whether falsification is actually a necessary requirement for scientific merit. It may be that falsification should be taken in a stronger sense to say that even though we might be able to falsify ID by showing that there is a better causal explanation for the effects observed, say natural selection for example, ID is still not falsifiable because the existence of the designer is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry by definition. With a black hole it is at least theoretically possible that we could directly observe it, we could fly out there in the newly constructed USS Enterprise warp capable star cruiser and drop something into the hole and watch it sink in. Or perhaps we might discover some form of radiation that does escape from the black hole, maybe we already have and I am behind the times. So lets look at falsification in this stronger sense.
Geomorphology is a field of geology which studies the structures of the earth and the processes involved in creating them. This involves examining current formations, like the Grand Canyon, and inferring the causal explanation for the effect that we observe today. So I am basically arguing that ID uses a similar form of reasoning inferring from observed effect to cause. Now there was a geologist by the name of J Harlan Bretz who came up with the unusual theory that massive flooding events in the past were the cause of many geologic features in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. He was ridiculed and laughed at. Today the Missoula floods, as they are known today, are accepted as having been the causal agent for the geologic effects observed today. Now I ask, in the strong sense of falsification, can we directly prove that the Missoula floods happened? Can we directly prove that any past event actually happened? Until we invent a time machine it seems that we cannot. So as far as natural history goes, I would say that a stronger sense of falsification cannot be used as a criterion for scientific merit. We cannot observe what happened in the past and so all we can do is examine what we have now and try to build the best explanation for how it got there and support that with arguments and evidence. ID is a matter of natural history and so the same must apply there. So I will now turn to the evidence presented by ID to support its claim that the best causal explanation for the things we observe today is an intelligent agent.
The main argument is that of irreducible complexity. This is to say that certain complex biologic structures are so complex that natural selection is an insufficient causal explanation for there existence. Now personally I think that natural selection is probably a better explanation. But if irreducible complexity fails as the best explanation then ID can be falsified in the weaker sense and so it can be falsified if one were able to show that natural selection is a better explanation. That is exactly what Ken Miller has attempted in pointing to the type 3 secretion .thingy as a means of showing how natural selection could have produced the bacteria flagellum one of Behes irreducibly complex biological structures. But regardless of whether the evidence fails or not, what we have here are two competing theories, both I would claim are scientific. To illustrate this I will use another example. One can examine the pyramids in Egypt and infer from this effect that the causal agent was human ingenuity and engineering; the science of archeology. One could also claim that humans of the time were insufficiently capable of building the pyramids and so they must have been built by aliens. Now the alien theory can be falsified in the weak sense by proving that humans could have built it. And tests have been done by scientists using ancient methods alone to show that it could have been done. In the strong sense we cannot falsify it because we cannot go back in time to see who actually built it (unless of course the aliens come back looking for their pyramid ). Both claims, I would argue are scientific in nature. One is a sound scientific theory accepted by the mainstream scientists; the other is rejected and adhered to by a fringe group of people. Does that make it unscientific in nature because it is a bad theory? I say no. I think the alien pyramid hypothesis is just as scientific as the human pyramid hypothesis. In the same way I believe that ID is scientific in nature even if it fails as the best explanation to describe the facts.
Now if anyone has actually taken the time to read these ramblings help me to figure out once and for all whether ID is scientific or not.
First let my start by saying that I do not think there is any uniform standard as to what makes something scientific or not. There is disagreement among scientists and philosophers of science as to what qualifications and standards something has to meet in order to be labeled as science. And this is essential to the question, we cannot determine whether ID is scientific or not without having a definition of what makes a thing or theory scientific. And so my first questions will be in regard to how we should define science? What criterion and standards should we use? Etc.
Even with the difficulties presented by not having a clear definition of science I would still like to play devils advocate and argue that ID is scientific. I propose to do this by comparing it to well established sciences and scientific practices to show that the arguments and inferences of ID are not so different from well established sciences.
First it must be noted that the arguments for ID are all based on indirect of evidence. The claim by ID is not that the designer can be directly examined but that the presence of a designer can be inferred based on its effects that we observe today. In this way I feel that the argument against ID that it is not scientific because it is not falsifiable, fails. In my understanding it is claimed that ID is not falsifiable because the designer is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, we can never directly observe the designer so we can never falsify the theory. This, in one sense, is true. Science cannot directly observe God and so no matter what science discovers a person of faith can always claim that God is the creator of all things. But, ID is not basing its arguments on direct observation of the creator/designer. I will now give several examples from established sciences of a similar sort of indirect evidence to show that this sort of reasoning and inference from effect to cause is scientific.
Black holes, by there very nature, cannot be directly observed. Nothing can escape the gravitational pull of black holes, not even light. Astronomers must examine the effects that the presence of a black hole has on nearby objects to then infer that the black hole exists and is causing the effects that are observed. By their very nature black holes, like the designer, cannot be directly observed. Now one way that black holes could be dismissed is by developing a hypothesis for some other phenomena that can account for all the effects caused by what we now call black holes. And so black holes, like ID, can be falsified by showing that the effects that are observed can have a better explanation. This I will call the weak sense of falsification. But perhaps I fail to understand exactly what falsification means. Let me just say that it is debatable as to whether falsification is actually a necessary requirement for scientific merit. It may be that falsification should be taken in a stronger sense to say that even though we might be able to falsify ID by showing that there is a better causal explanation for the effects observed, say natural selection for example, ID is still not falsifiable because the existence of the designer is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry by definition. With a black hole it is at least theoretically possible that we could directly observe it, we could fly out there in the newly constructed USS Enterprise warp capable star cruiser and drop something into the hole and watch it sink in. Or perhaps we might discover some form of radiation that does escape from the black hole, maybe we already have and I am behind the times. So lets look at falsification in this stronger sense.
Geomorphology is a field of geology which studies the structures of the earth and the processes involved in creating them. This involves examining current formations, like the Grand Canyon, and inferring the causal explanation for the effect that we observe today. So I am basically arguing that ID uses a similar form of reasoning inferring from observed effect to cause. Now there was a geologist by the name of J Harlan Bretz who came up with the unusual theory that massive flooding events in the past were the cause of many geologic features in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. He was ridiculed and laughed at. Today the Missoula floods, as they are known today, are accepted as having been the causal agent for the geologic effects observed today. Now I ask, in the strong sense of falsification, can we directly prove that the Missoula floods happened? Can we directly prove that any past event actually happened? Until we invent a time machine it seems that we cannot. So as far as natural history goes, I would say that a stronger sense of falsification cannot be used as a criterion for scientific merit. We cannot observe what happened in the past and so all we can do is examine what we have now and try to build the best explanation for how it got there and support that with arguments and evidence. ID is a matter of natural history and so the same must apply there. So I will now turn to the evidence presented by ID to support its claim that the best causal explanation for the things we observe today is an intelligent agent.
The main argument is that of irreducible complexity. This is to say that certain complex biologic structures are so complex that natural selection is an insufficient causal explanation for there existence. Now personally I think that natural selection is probably a better explanation. But if irreducible complexity fails as the best explanation then ID can be falsified in the weaker sense and so it can be falsified if one were able to show that natural selection is a better explanation. That is exactly what Ken Miller has attempted in pointing to the type 3 secretion .thingy as a means of showing how natural selection could have produced the bacteria flagellum one of Behes irreducibly complex biological structures. But regardless of whether the evidence fails or not, what we have here are two competing theories, both I would claim are scientific. To illustrate this I will use another example. One can examine the pyramids in Egypt and infer from this effect that the causal agent was human ingenuity and engineering; the science of archeology. One could also claim that humans of the time were insufficiently capable of building the pyramids and so they must have been built by aliens. Now the alien theory can be falsified in the weak sense by proving that humans could have built it. And tests have been done by scientists using ancient methods alone to show that it could have been done. In the strong sense we cannot falsify it because we cannot go back in time to see who actually built it (unless of course the aliens come back looking for their pyramid ). Both claims, I would argue are scientific in nature. One is a sound scientific theory accepted by the mainstream scientists; the other is rejected and adhered to by a fringe group of people. Does that make it unscientific in nature because it is a bad theory? I say no. I think the alien pyramid hypothesis is just as scientific as the human pyramid hypothesis. In the same way I believe that ID is scientific in nature even if it fails as the best explanation to describe the facts.
Now if anyone has actually taken the time to read these ramblings help me to figure out once and for all whether ID is scientific or not.
).
