Not everyone I speak to is familiar with the notion of ‘Intelligent Design’. When asked, I often cut to the chase and say that Intelligent Design (ID) is just another form of Creationism but in disguise. Or in other words, ID omits the Biblical story of Creation and asserts that a Designer created life. Proponents of ID, however, say that their theory is not another form of Creationism for several reasons. Here are some of the main differences:
Creationism holds that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago, whereas ID proponents accept that the Earth is at least many millions of years old.
ID proponents accept that species do undergo a small number of changes, whereas Creationism holds that all life on Earth was created in their current form.
Most crucially, and to avoid ID being immediately classed as a purely religious idea, ID does not name the Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer is not for discussion; all that the theory proposes is that there is intelligent design going on.
For any theory to be considered science it has to hold up to the scrutiny of scientific method.
The classic view of how science operates is that discoveries are made based on observation. For example, a scientist may be working out in the field researching the nature of swans. He observes all the swans that he can find and notes that each swan is white. He does this for several years and comes to the conclusion that all swans are white. In philosophical terms this type of method is known as induction. Inductive reasoning has been the bedrock for many scientific discoveries since at least Ancient Greece. In fact, without induction, we wouldn’t get very far.
However, scientific methods have moved on since Ancient Greece. The philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994ce), amongst others, suggested that ‘falsification’ would a better scientific method. Falsification is the approach that if any evidence can be found that falsifies the conclusion, then the theory is falsifiable. So, using our example above, if you can find any black swans you can falsify the theory that all swans are white. The theory of ‘all swans are white’ was in principle falsifiable and, as we know there are black swans, the theory has been falsified.
If we extend our swan theory and say that all swans are either white or black and add something extra – that all swans have at least two legs, we have a new theory that in principal can be falsified. All that is required is that we find a swan with more than two legs. This is a much more efficient method of scientific inquiry as all we have to do is find a consistent set of swans with more legs than usual.
A frogswan theory…
An example of an un-falsifiable theory would be as such: I have discovered a unique species of swans that are either black or white and that also turn into frogs when hidden inside a box. That is, when this unique species of swans are not observed, they turn into frogs. I shall call these ‘frogswans’. Any method of observation, either direct or indirect (AV recording, for example), immediately renders the unique frog hidden from view to turn back into a swan. The problem here, however, is this ‘theory’ is not falsifiable as there is no observable (empirical) way to prove or disprove that swans turn into frogs when hidden inside a box. The frogswan ‘theory’ can quite rightly be considered as nonsense, as it cannot be proved either way.
So, a good scientific theory is one that in principle can be falsified. An even better scientific theory is one that stands the test of time and resists any attempt of falsification. Any theory that does become falsified is adjusted or rejected and this is how science, on the whole, progresses. Any theory that in principal cannot be falsified is considered pseudoscience. Or rather, any theory that is impossible to falsify, because a supposed condition exists (such as there is an Intelligent Designer, or swans can turn into frogs), then it can never be positively or negatively proven either way.
The trouble with Intelligent Design as a ‘theory’ is that the Intelligent Designer cannot be positively or negatively proved. Or, scientifically speaking, ID cannot in principle be falsified because: a) the Designer cannot be proved or disproved; b) creates a doubt of predictability; and finally c) the theory is impossible to test, unless we have a direct line with the Designer.
So if the theory of evolution is so solid, why not teach ID in the classroom anyway? Firstly, ID does not stand up to the rigour of contemporary scientific method, as discussed above. Secondly, it’s a carrier for a discussion with a religious context – there is a Designer somewhere in the cosmos that has/had a hand in all that is living. And finally, the ultimate conclusion that ID proposes – a designer did it/does it – is a dead end, at least in scientific realms.
Hi, Im from Melbourne in the land of Oz–somwhere in the middle of the rainbow.
This related essays provide a unique understanding of the relationship between exoteric religion and scientISM.
1. http://www.dabase.net/creamyth.htm
2. http://www.dabase.net/noface.htm
3. http://www.dabase.net/christmc2.htm
4. http://www.dabase.net/dht6.htm
5. http://www.dabase.net/dht7.htm
Theory: Intricacy Suggests Intellect
The Intelligent Design theory was launched in 1991 when Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, published his book Darwin on Trial. The idea proposes that the intricate complexity of plants and animals is evidence that life could only be the work of an intelligent designer, not evolution. The theory stops short of declaring what or who the intelligent designer might be.
“It’s like finding a radio and thinking it was simple and then opening it up and realizing it has many many different parts,†said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and author of another book about Intelligent Design, Darwin’s Black Box. “By its intricacy you know it had to be put together by intellect.â€
David Haury, a professor of science education at The Ohio State University, adds that science is made up of theories and so it is unfair to single out the theory of evolution as unproven.
“There are no proven theories in science,†he said. “If we point out that evolution is unproven, we’ll need to point out that the theory of gravity is also unproven. And evolution is a much stronger theory than the theory of gravity. Evolution is the scientific view that needs to be presented.â€
Unlike past movements to include the biblical theory of creation in school’s science plans, proponents of Intelligent Design deny their agenda is a religious one. Behe explains the theory points out weaknesses in Darwin’s theory of evolution and tries to present the “best explanation of how the world got here.†The fact that the theory’s explanation is mystical, says Behe, is beside the point.
“All we’re saying is teachers should be encouraged to point out difficulties with the theory of evolution,â€
Lee
As you point out ID theory falls outside the realm of science – the scientific method can only deal with the physical cosmos (time, space, energy) it can deal in metaphysics. That is not to say that a metaphysical cosmos does not exist – it just means that science is very limited!
ID however does legitimately come within the realm of philosophy and philosophers should make serious effort to critique and incorporate its findings. It is quite legitimate for philosophers to examine both the physical, metaphysical and logic claims of ID
there is a typo in my last comment – it should read about science.’.it can not deal in metaphysics.’..
Hi Mike,
If something is beyond and above nature would you not describe it as supernature?
I understand what you’re saying – about the presuppositions – the axioms – that we take for granted. I mentioned this in another post on the limits of mathematics.
The sole purpose if the ID movement is to manipulate science to fulfill their agenda. I’ll return to this assertion in the future. For now, take a look at this: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
Adam
you state:
“The sole purpose if the ID movement is to manipulate science to fulfill their agenda. I’ll return to this assertion in the future.”
This is a sweeping and damning statement which to my knowledge it is basically untrue. William Dembski in his book ‘Intelligent Design’ (IVP, 1999) sets out a clear scientific method for testing ID and as I have stated above, if traditional scientific axioms were re-assessed today, ID does rationally provide a sound means by which natural evolution could be falsified by means of empirical evidence and so should be accepted by main-stream science.
It is a red herring to suggest that a ‘sitting’ scientific theory should only be replaced when there is widespread worry about its efficacy. Newton’s laws of gravity and motion were very well seated and respected and it took some years for Einstein’s theory of general relativity to be accepted as a replacement, simply because it was a higher level explanation which was eventually shown to be supported by empirical evidence.
I put it to you that ID is a similar higher level scientific explanation that may in time be shown to fit the empirical data better than the theory of evolution. As you know conclusions that are based on ignoring possible verifiable axioms (such as design) are bound to be weaker than those that are inclusive and are likely to fall into a circular trap (as indeed current evolutionary theory does).
regards Mike
Mike, thanks for your post. One of the main reasons I set up this weblog is to keep me on my toes and you’re certainly doing that!
I’m familiar with Dembski and his writing. I don’t have the time today to give you a full response but I will do in as soon as I get some free time.
Adam
I think the main fuss (I’m a creationist currently) is that there is no debate allowed in evolution class. I was in high school 2 years ago. I was told the evidence, I was told life was millions of years old, and I believed it. Big bang? The science teacher said so, therefore I believed it. Can a textbook be wrong?
However, later I learned there is much debate on the topics discussed in schools, and none of these were ever mentioned when I was being taught particle to human evolution.
For example, why didn’t they tell us the Miller experiment created a toxic environment for life? What’s with the claims of the peppermoths? That wasn’t even particle-to-human evolution, yet they said it proved millions of years. Our current dating methods are flawless? Yeah right.
Maybe it’s just my textbook, but the least athiests can do is update their textbooks to bring real facts.
For example:
1) fact / evidence
2) fact / evidence
3) therefore.. I interpret this evidence to imply millions of years.
Currently it is:
1) the earth is 100% billions of years old
2) this happened, therefore we proved billions of years
3) this other thing proves billions of years
It’s as if their presuppositions determine the evidence, specifically their interpretations of evidence.
I agree ID is NOT science. But, you can interpret evidence to fit ID theology, which basically teaches everything a student needs to know to succeed in life.
For example, it’s quite clear the for the Galapagos islands, there was once a finch. The finch branched off to a variety of finches within a thousand or two years. That doesn’t conflict with any faith, and it demonstrates natural selection.
I believe the teaching of evolution can be revised to state just the facts and observations, without referring to the origins of life.
If athiests want to prove millions of years, then show the evidence. Don’t insist on it without proof like the current high school textbooks do, because that isn’t science!
Let me know what you think.