There has been a lot of debate recently on ‘science’ vs. Intelligent Design. I’ve been following all this quite a bit as both an ‘amateur scientist’ and ‘amateur theologian’. I wrote this essay for a class, so I thought I would throw it up here. I’m also preparing a more in-depth technical analysis that is still on the editorial table… I’ll get it out soon I hope.
***
Galileo’s Telescope: The Sequel?
In the early 1600s, a major debate broke out that had a direct impact on science, religion, and philosophy. Legend has it, that the bishops and church officials refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, because they believed that the Bible should trump science in regard to the workings of the universe. Aristotle’s geo-centricity (that the earth is the center of the solar system) was under attack from scientific evidence for heliocentricity (that the sun is the center of the solar system). Galileo was instrumental, with advances and use of the telescope, to help prove Copernicus was correct. Thus began the battle between religion and science, or so they say.
While this legend is quite inaccurate, it makes a good starting point for the discussion of science, religion, and their relationship. (Lessl, 2000, pp. 27-33) Steve Kellmeyer describes in “Galileo Redux” that at this point in time, the “scientists” were actually primarily philosophers. Copernicus’ theories were much more in the realm of mathematics, which was seen as a lesser discipline. (Kellmeyer, 2005) This combined with the fact that Aristotle’s model had worked so well for predicting seasons, navigation, and the weather, made looking at anything new a risky proposal. So, Copernicus and Galileo were not met with favor by by the majority; scientists or theologians. These “scientist” philosophers actually used the Bible and the church’s power against Galileo and Copernicus, though the church did go along with it for the most part. (Lessl, 2000)
I believe we are watching the sequel to this event today over the debates between evolution and intelligent design. Once again, some people are unwilling to “look through the telescope” for fear their positions may be overturned. But, who is unwilling to look? There are certainly conservative Christians who refuse to take a serious look at the evidence. But it is the scholars in the scientific community who I believe are refusing to “look through the telescope” once again, and they should know better. This is bad for science and bad for everyone.
The playing field for this debate in the present day is primarily showing up in the debates and trials over evolution vs. intelligent design. This area is so misunderstood that I am going to try and give you a brief overview of the positions, and some of the myths and incorrect views on both sides of the debate, before I explain how this relates to my overall thesis.
What is evolution? Well, basically it is the idea that organisms change. When an organism is put in an environment, changes which are beneficial will increase the survival rate, while detrimental changes will cause death. No change will lead to death as well, because of limited resources. This is called ‘natural selection’. This in itself is quite a dandy concept, and we can observe this happening to various extents in the world around us. It is, for sake of argument, pretty much at a level of scientific ‘law’. However, it is debated to what extent there is evidence for natural selection explaining the needed species jumps to take evolution to the next level. In other words, is that apple you are eating the distant cousin of your poodle?
What is Intelligent Design? It is actually a multi-disciplinary approach, far too complex to go into great detail here. However, in brief, it looks at things such as the necessary characteristics and parameters of the earth in the universe necessary to even be able to support life; if it is possible to get life out of “soup”; how life gets enough information to reproduce (survive). This leads into information theory and the patterns we see in life and DNA (which nature left to itself is not known to produce). When we put this all together, Darwin’s theory begins to quickly fall apart. In fact, Charles Darwin realized this. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, 1859).
What I find particularly convincing in the various disciplines of intelligent design, is the evidence of design pre-natural selection. Darwin’s theory depends on life to begin with. Rocks don’t beget living life forms that know how to reproduce. For life to even happen at all, there are a number of finely tuned parameters the earth must meet. Every year, we find more of these parameters, so the odds decrease. An example might be the distance of the earth from the sun, or levels of nitrogen to oxygen in the atmosphere. (Ross, 1995, pp. 132-44) In fact, renowned scientist Dr. Nicholas M. Short agrees with this assessment. He says, “It is the Goldilocks dictum: not too hot, not too cold, just right. If chance alone were the governing determinant, the odds are enormously against all the above parameters/factors, and others, being just right. Some intelligence, be it God or any other analogous name or concept, had to play the pivotal role in establishing and structuring a scientifically developed Universe.” (Short, 2001)
Now, scientists certainly have a right to complain about what many Christians say when they hear the word “evolution”. For many, this immediately evokes a battle, and the Christian says, “I don’t believe that. It is not what the Bible says.” Science is wrong, they are right, no matter what evidence is presented. But, the scientists are not without blame in this matter. It seems they have purposely loaded “evolution” with a lot of meaning that does not belong.
They lump evolution (fact/law) to natural selection (theory), to origin of life (hypothesis). Christians could also likewise claim: evolution (fact/law), intelligent design (theory), to the design we see as coming from God (hypothesis).
Many scientists have extended the application of evolution ‘the law’ into the realm of cosmogony (study of origins of the universe). If we take this observable phenomena (micro-evolution), and assume our way back into time, we could imagine a time where people evolved out of some lesser species, until we get back to more basic organism, right back to the origins of life on this planet. Still with me? Well the problem with this is that they often forget to change from a ‘law’ to a ‘theory’, to a ‘hypothesis’ at that point. The average lay Christian smells a rat in this, but does not know enough to divide the term evolution up into its proper parts. The scientists then throw this back on the Christian, and tell them they are ignorant.
But, the biggest flaw in this debate seem to be the argument of the “scientists”. The primary case being brought against the intelligent design position is what in logic is called the ad hominem fallacy. This is the fallacy of character attack. They say that the intelligent design position is not science. But they don’t say why. Then they try and link ID to religion, therefore automatically make it void. While it is certainly true that many Christians back intelligent design, it does not depend whatsoever on religion for its basis. This attack is simply out of desperation.
While “separation of church and state” might loosely be a theme in our Constitution. It is not a basis for scientific inquiry. If the evidence leads to a design for the universe, it is no less scientific because it could have implications for religion, any more than it would be if it leads to an absence of support for religion.
This leads to a fundamental point of contention between the two camps. It really boils down to how one defines science. John Hanna of the Kansas City Star states that, “The old definition said science is the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe. The new definition says science is a systematic method for developing better explanations of natural phenomena by doing experiments, testing hypotheses, making measurements and building theories.” (Hanna, 2005)
Do you see the difference? In the first definition, the words “natural explanations” are used to define what the results of science must to be. While the scientists like to claim intelligent design is motivated by Christianity, the motivation of that first definition seems to be under the influence of another religion, namely Humanism. Compare it to the Humanist Manifesto which states, “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” (Humanism and its Aspirations, 2003)
But is this fair? Can science rightly exclude supernatural possibilities? The answer to that is most certainly not. While science will likely never be able to prove the existence of God, it can neither exclude the possibility. This is something the humanist does not want to hear, hence the battle before us.
We find ourselves once again full circle to philosophy and religion. In both the Galileo episode and our debates of today, science and philosophy are getting confused and competing with one another rather than cooperating. Both must be informed by one another, and have respect for each other. R.C. Sproul says that scientists today have become extremely good at the induction part of science, but have become very poor at deduction. They will look at some data and then make illogical statements like “… so many billion years ago the universe exploded into being …” (Sproul, 2003).
I would agree with that assessment, and take it one step further. I believe that like the the “scientist” philosophers of Galileo’s who did not respect the mathematicians, we have a situation here nearly opposite. The scientists buried in the data are not respecting deduction, logic, or philosophy. If anything, are under the influence of what I would call a religion, excluding other religions. This is certainly not good for science as a discipline, or any of us. We must get to true and pure science, and fearlessly “look through the telescope” on both sides of the debate.
*****
References:
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. Chapter 6. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/
Hanna, J. (December 9, 2005). Corkins defends standards as debate over science definition rages. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from Kansas City Star web site:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13372695.htm
Humanism and its Aspirations, Humanist Manifesto III, 2003. (2003). American Humanist Association. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
Kellmeyer, S. (August 16, 2005). Galileo Redux. The Conservative Voice. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7533
Lessl, T. (June 2000). The Galileo Legend. New Oxford Review, 27-33. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
Ross, H. (1995). The Creator and the Cosmos, 2d ed. (pp. 132-44). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress
Short, N. M. (2001). Is God Compatible With Science? Retrieved November 16, 2005, from NASA Goddard, The Remote Sensing Tutorial web site:
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A11a.html
Sproul, R.C. (Narrator). (2003). Creation or Chaos: Modern Science and the Existence of God. [Audio Program]. Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries
Balderdash, balderdash, balderdash. You set up a cornfield of straw men, and knock them down in succession.
You suggested: ‘I believe we are watching the sequel to this event today over the debates between evolution and intelligent design. Once again, some people are unwilling to ‘look through the telescope’ for fear their positions may be overturned . . .’
I believe this observation is too often true for man and men, I don’t agree that it is the scientific community most afflicted with the symptoms. I do believe that this suggests a good starting point for the debate.
My Position that I hope requires no defense:
Bad science is bad.
Bad science on the part of A does not justify bad science on the part of B, nor does it remotely suggest that the conclusions of B are correct even if B correctly identifies the mistakes of A.
My position in the ID debate which I believe to be defensible:
Any theory is debatable in the halls of academia, but only theories with a sound factual basis should be included in grade school texts (that would be grades 1-12 in the US system). Relativity went through a lot of evaluation before being introduced into high school physics.
Intelligent design is being ramroded into grade school science without any supporting evidence. (Typically by religious zealots, which colors the rhetoric, but is irrelevant to the merits of the arguments)
However, it is debated to what extent there is evidence for natural selection explaining the needed species jumps to take evolution to the next level. In other words, is that apple you are eating the distant cousin of your poodle?
If you are suggesting that there gaps in the evidence? I don’t think there is any debate of that. As there are significant gaps in the evidence, I would not expect unanimous agreement as to what could be expected to fill those gaps. The text book discussions should focus, I contend, on the nature of the evidence and on the lack of evidence.
I’ll add one more to my ‘this should be obvious’ list: A lack of proof for X in no way proves or even suggests Y. Of course it does not disprove it either, and relativity is a pretty wild theory still, regardless of the evidence.
While it is certainly true that many Christians back intelligent design, it does not depend whatsoever on religion for its basis. This attack is simply out of desperation.
No, the attack is out of frustration. The attempt of the religious right to force creationism into science class is well documented. Knee-jerk reactions to new attacks on science class are probably frustration with ‘you? again? Please take your religion back to church.’
This could be a corollary to my first position – a poorly thought out rejection of bad idea does not make the bad idea good. (Of course a poorly thought out rejection of an idea does not make the idea necessarily bad either, and if the idea IS bad, a poorly thought out rejection is probably less effective than a well thought out rejection, and at a minimum, less defensible.)
It is not a basis for scientific inquiry. If the evidence leads to a design for the universe, it is no less scientific because it could have implications for religion, any more than it would be if it leads to an absence of support for religion.
This gets back to my debatable points. Notice you said ‘IF’. That make this a topic for debate in graduate anthropology/micro biology whatever, not high school science. WHEN evidence leads to a design for the universe or anything, put that in the textbooks.
This leads to a fundamental point of contention between the two camps. It really boils down to how one defines science. John Hanna of the Kansas City Star states that, “The old definition said science is the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe. The new definition says science is a systematic method for developing better explanations of natural phenomena by doing experiments, testing hypotheses, making measurements and building theories.†(Hanna, 2005)
Completely irrelevant. I hope no one is proposing Socrates / Aristotle Philosophy-science without experimental verification.
But is this fair?
Save fair for ethics class, not science!
Can science rightly exclude supernatural possibilities?
Without evidence, it should not go into a science text. Keep it as a debate for academics.
science and philosophy are getting confused and competing with one another rather than cooperating
The confusion appears to me to be deliberate on the part of the religious to pass their religion off as science. Maybe I’m getting knee-jerk there. Philosophy should not be a part of this discussion – see ‘Completely irrelevant’ above.
R.C. Sproul says that scientists today have become extremely good at the induction part of science, but have become very poor at deduction. They will look at some data and then make illogical statements like ‘… so many billion years ago the universe exploded into being
Total balderdash. It looks to me like R. C. Sproul has no clue as to what he is talking about. I haven’t read his paper, but I have read a lot about the ‘big bang theory’, and though I am rather skeptical (there appear to be problems with some of the assumptions) it is a well thought out and well explained theory. You should be careful about dismissing well established theories out of hand, and be careful of those who do. I would be happy to discuss what I see as the errors in the big bang (ok, they are not my ideas, but they make sense to me) but to dismiss it because you are clueless, as is RCS, is not scientific debate but non-sense. Send it away, its too confusing.
If you wish to challenge ‘the big bang’ or any other theory for that matter, find someone who knows what they are talking about to quote. There are numerous challenges to the big bang published by people who actually know what the theory is based on.
The scientists buried in the data are not respecting deduction, logic, or philosophy
Where I am sure this statement applies to certain individuals, the problems I see in science on a larger scale is blind adherence to well respected theories, and not challenging the theories adequately when the data consistently misses the mark.
We must get to true and pure science, and fearlessly ‘look through the telescope’ on both sides of the debate.
Good science is good, bad science is bad, I say, but I think these are just the arguments going around.
Intelligent Design, today, is a ploy to pass un-supported theories off as science. I think relativity is a much crazier theory than ID, but it has been proven in thousands of experiments. It is ready for the textbooks. ID is not being argued by scientists, but is being pushed by hucksters, usually with a religious agenda, onto ignorant politicians and school boards. That is just bad science in my opinion, and bad science in the now standard ‘peer review process’ of debate in the academic circles before acceptance.
I do appreciate how laborious and frustrating that process is, but it keeps a lot of nonsense out.
It makes no matter how good an idea it may someday turn out to be, it is not today ready for text books.
I will throw two more cents in here (related to your posts on the Wired news-Battling the Closet Bible Bashers forum): If there are un-supported claims in science texts, push to have them removed, do not add more un-supported claims. We absolutely do not need any flying spaghetti monsters in science texts.
The real argument is about who decides when an idea is ready for prime time. Who should select what is taught in school. Scientists? Politicians? PTAs? Judges? Should anyone be allowed, there be a screening process?
Your source R.C. Sproul recommends dismissing the big bang theory because it is over his head. Do you really think he is qualified to select a high school science curriculum?
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. They are mentioned in science as history. They are taught in school as philosophy. The separation of science and philosophy has been very good for science, and should be continued in my opinion.
Sorry, the wife rushed me off with the second paragraph (above) half edited.
My point: There is a screening process in place for science texts. It is not perfect, but it is better than opening the doors to anyone with a pet theory or agenda. The fight over ID is because people are pushing to have it introduced without passing the established process. The Flying Pizza Monster theory was introduced simply to challenge the idea that a theory (Any theory, ID for example) should be introduced into texts without first passing the peer review process.
HI John,
I agree with you that bad science is bad science, just as bad philosophy is bad philosophy, or even bad religion is bad religion. I think you have hit on the main point I’m trying to get at…. What is bad science then?
The main counterpoint to considering ID as science seems to be its possible religious implications. If the data we collect points more towards design, does it automatically become invalidated as science? In other words, must science exclude the possibility of a deity or other intelligence to be ‘good’ science?
I would argue that for most of the anti-ID community, they would say ‘yes’. This has nothing to do with good or bad science, but has to do with a philosophical position.
Let me give you an example. Lets say that in another thousand years, we have begun to explore the universe. We have found that the very oldest things we could ever find had some signs of a more developed state of life. As we explore other planets, we find traces of life as well. When we map these traces along with movements of the systems, we discover that they are all leading to a particular part of a distant galaxy.
Do you think the above is more consistent with the ‘evolution’ camp, or the ID camp? Would this data need to be tossed out, as it might lead external intelligence in some way, and not naturalism? I’m doubting the ‘science’ community would have any problems with this at all, even though it is more oriented with parts ID.
To the extent that ID theories try to tie in to religious claims (other than the possibility of some sort of designer/deity), I would totally agree they do not belong in science texts unless there is evidence.
I would agree with you on the outcome of the Dover trial, as I think the board did cross the line there from what I have read about the case. I’ll stand side by side with you to defend that… I totally agree that this is the job of the church. I’ll stand by you on other issues as well… like school prayer. That is also the church’s job… not the schools.
My issue, is that I think science has been hi-jacked by an atheistic, humanistic philosophy. This is no better for science than if it were hi-jacked by right-wing Christians. Either way, the conclusions drawn from the data get tainted. Can science prove God? Likely not…. but unless science has good reason to believe god does not exist or was not involved… it should leave that option open in the exploration of the data.
If I want to prove God to you… I’d certainly not start with ID. It’s just way too much work. Even if I won… you’d be no better off as a generic theist than a agnostic or atheist. Anthony Flew is a great example of a famous atheist convinced by some lines of ID argumentation, yet still as hostile to Christianity as ever.
So, what is my gain in pushing ID? Two things… first, as I said… the basic foundations of scientific inquiry are at stake here. For science to start ruling out theories and data for which it has no reason to deny and to accept others based on want rather than data is bad science.
Second, since we have freedom of religion in this country, I don’t think our kids should be going to schools where they are taught that their particular religion is false when there is no evidence to support such conclusions. Does rain come from gods making love in the sky? I think we have quite a bit of scientific evidence to answer that. Did life just happen rather than be created? Good science does not have an answer to that one… not enough data yet.
As for R.C. Sproul… the what he is complaining about is not the ‘big bang’ it’s the ‘exploded into being’ part. It’s funny that this is considered science… it sounds more like creationism to me. R.C. does not dismiss the big bang because it is over his head. He is a theologian/logician. He doesn’t debate the evidence for the big bang… he debates the statements of the scientists that defy basic logic…. like the Nobel Prize winning scientist I quoted.
You keep talking about things not making the science texts without sufficient evidence. I guess I have no huge problem with that. But, there is quite a bit of evidence that would suggest design over random happening. Also, there is no evidence that we are a product of some kind of natural process derived from the ‘big bang’ either. Why do these positions get the status of science?
But… there is one major thing on which we seem to agree. It is best to keep philosophy and science divided on some level… and that is EXACTLY why I’m backing ID in these debates. It is to rid science of its humanistic philosophical underpinnings in the last couple hundred years.
You ask why not just find things to take out of the texts? Simple. If I said… I want you to remove the stuff that ties evolution to anything more than a biological change of species over time. I want ‘natural selection’ unlinked from this idea of all life originating from one organism. And I absolutely want any linkage from all of this to the big bang removed from science texts…. what would you say?
You would probably ask if I had any better theories…. to which I’d say ‘YES’… ID.
You’d probably think you also have more evidence for the above… but you really don’t. It is speculation based on humanistic and naturalistic presuppositions (philosophy).
-Steve
Perhaps you could tell us about or post a link to an actual, reproducable, experiment that gives observable evidence of any of the points that ID supporters would like to have taught in schools. That’s how science works, theory, experiment, observe results, change theory to match results, experiment to see if any more results can be obtained that would lead to altering theory until there are no more observable results that contradict the theory. And of course, the experiments that prove the theory have to be reproducable, not a secret one time experiement that can never be duplicated. (IE: Hold rock in hand while standing on the planet earth, let go of rock, rock falls to ground. This works every single time. If you have any doubts, get a really heavy rock, and drop it on your foot a few times. That should help convince anybody who doubts that the rock will fall down.)
***Also, there is no evidence that we are a product of some kind of natural process derived from the ‘big bang’ either. Why do these positions get the status of science?***
Ah yes, the rub! How does good science go bad? I too believe there is an unfortunate volume of that in the texts. All that scientific peer review mumbo jumbo I mentioned earlier takes place at a fairly high level (by peers with axes to grind). Evolution, Big bang, etc. Data points – stars across the heavens showing various Doppler red shifts suggesting a collection of vectors representing universal expansion. Draw the lines backwards through time and you get some sort of convergence X billion years ago.
More data points: fossil records of increasingly simpler life forms. Data points suggesting a geological age of the planet of 6 or so billon years.
Dr. Richard P. Feynman, in his autobiography ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!’ recounted his experience as a text book reviewer. He was on a panel of several professors reviewing prospective texts for (I believe, but do not recollect all the details) the state of California, high school science. Assembled with the panel and publishers at the end of the review period, and most of the panel had submitted satisfactory reviews of a particular three volume set, Richard complained to the publisher that his copy of volume 3 was blank. The publisher admitted that volume three had not been printed yet, and that all copies of v. 3 were blank. No other reviewer even looked! They nearly approved a blank book.
The actual texts used in school go through a much less rigorous review than the papers in scientific journals, and the writers of said texts appear to have a lot of poetic license on how parallels are drawn from the data. I am sure there are cases where just about anything gets through.
But it should not get through. Nor should ID go in before passing through the peer review process. Undocumented claims should be removed and the uncertainty admitted to, not replaced with other undocumented claims, no matter how sensible they sound.
As for Sproul, R.C., your quote from him was quite short, and I tried to be clear about my assumptions. If my assumptions were wrong, it follows the conclusion would be too. I have never heard of ‘exploded into being’. It sounds like a paraphrase of the big bang, where all the matter of the universe exploded out of a single concentration of that mass. Followed by the suggestion that all information of the form of the matter prior to and just following the bang would likely have been lost in the bang itself. The idea that the big bang is a repeating cycle of expansion/contraction appears to have few champions at present.
Regards, John
somethingI came across on interity in science.
A Richard Feynman commencement address given in 1974
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html
that should be integrity, not interity.
P Euler said *** Perhaps you could tell us about or post a link to an actual, reproducable, experiment that gives observable evidence of any of the points that ID supporters would like to have taught in schools. ***
So, then Paleontology and Archeology aren’t considered science?
You will also have to toss out about 90% of what is said in the texts on Evolution, and just about all of natural selection. Certainly, you’ll have to get rid of any tie from evolution back to the big bang unless you have something major to show me in your lab. If you’ve reproduced the big bang, let me know… I’ll be right over.
Science is not defined by the ability to reproduce an experiment. Science is simply a discipline designed to explain and define the world and universe around us. We collect data by examining what is around us (sometimes reproducing parts when possible, yes) and draw conclusions and theories from this observation. When the data starts to point differently, we make corrections to theories or even laws if we somehow got that far into error.
What we don’t do, is make a theory is untouchable. We certainly don’t put a hypothesis in a position where it is the only accepted ‘scientific’ view as a method protecting it from scrutiny.
ID is another such set of theories and hypothesis investigating the origins of life and the universe. It really isn’t all that foreign to us, and is widely accepted in other facets of our lives and the sciences.
For example, you might be familiar with SETI, or have seen it run on someone’s computer. It is the ‘Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence’. In fact, the SETI@Home web site says right at the top… “SETI@home is a scientific experiment…”. (Got some aliens in your lab by chance?… sorry, cheap shot I guess… but I think you asked for it…)
But, what is SETI doing? How would they (or the computer program) know if any results to be concerned with were found?
The answer is actually quite simple, but scientifically complex. It gets into Information Theory and all kinds of nasty mathematics. But, the practical upshot to our discussion is that there is a difference between things that occur naturally (via nature), and things that carry intelligence. I’m an amateur radio license holder, and I can tell you that if I scan across a frequency band with the old dial… I can tell when I’ve found something worth listening to. It doesn’t matter if it is in my language, or even something like Morse code. I can pick it out… I’m betting you could too.
We all see this in just about every aspect of life. It is the difference between white noise vs speech or music… between a pile of rocks and a cathedral… between a painting and an exploded paint factory (some modern art aside). There is a difference between what randomness and nature are capable of producing, and something that involves design. Some evolutionists just don’t want people to be looking into this, as it kind of ruins there humanist/naturalist religion. So, they hide behind ‘science’ to de-ligitimize any threatening positions.
ID (in its Information Theory aspects) is simply applying some of the same techniques of Information Theory to the examination of how life has come about and progressed. The problem is that it is challenging the status quo. That is always a difficult thing to do I guess… whether in Galileo’s day or the present.
-Steve
Hi John,
The article by Richard Feynman was interesting. I agree that the only way we will truly have good science is if integrity is maximized. However, I fear that such integrity isn’t always the case on either side of this debate. Also, keeping one side out of the argument really isn’t the way to go either.
I suppose I could agree with you on removing questionable stuff from the student texts… but then would we be left with much to teach them? My goal in continuing the ID vs. Evolution argument is to show that both sides have their merit for study. Eliminating a position that has merit (as I believe ID does) based on a philosophical bias isn’t going to help science progress.
-Steve
I will suggest the following as an ‘official’ responce from the NAS:
from: Science and Creationism (http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html); A view from the National Academy of Sciences
Conclusion (© 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences)
Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.
— “Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.” —
I agree with this in general principal. The problem is that many ‘scientific’ theories and hypothesis are not directly testable, and are conclusions based on observable, testable data. ID is no different. It is a concept based on observable, testable data. The ultimate end conclusion of ID might not be testable, granted, but neither is it for the ultimate conclusion of the evolutionists.
— “Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error.” —
Sure they do. Many components of ID are based on biological observations, observations of the complexity and intelligence in systems, complexity of the universe compared to natural phenomena, etc. This is all testable and revisable if new data is found. Both are looking at the data, just drawing different conclusions from the data.
Also, concerning publication… in an Interview with Modern Reformation, Michael Behe had the following to say:
(http://www.modernreformation.org/btt.htm)
—
MR: The main critique often heard of intelligent design is that it is not true science, especially given that its proponents are not submitting their articles for peer review in credible scientific journals. How would you respond?
MB: There is a lot of prejudice against the idea of intelligent design. Many scientists feel that science should avoid things that seem to have religious implications. And if you say anything friendly toward intelligent design and you are an active scientist, there will be a price to pay for doing so.
MR: Have you attempted to get published in credible scientific journals?
MB: Yes I have. I’ve sent manuscripts to a number of journals and they say, sorry, we believe in evolution, we think evolution is true and we think your ideas amount to religion and philosophy and therefore we’re not going to publish them.
—
So, what is one to do? You either tow the evolutionist line, or you are labeled a heretic.
Once again, if you start with ground rules that automatically rule out any non-naturalistic conclusion… that is all you will find. I agree that we can only scientifically measure and observe natural phenomena… but, the conclusions to be drawn from the data need to be open to wherever the data leads.
-Steve