And Now For Something Completely Different

If I was a book in a library, then I'd finally be free

The End of Intelligent Design or the End of Theory?

with one comment

I caught about half of the NOVA special on last night about the Dover case ruling on Intelligent Design. I thought the whole procedure, and its logical outcomes, was spectacular. However, I was a little bothered by the sort of epilogue that followed discussing the actual trial.

The Discovery Institute has been a proponent of Intelligent Design, the idea that the universe is just too friggin’ complex and weird to have arisen from natural processes that it can only have been intelligently designed. After Judge Jone’s opinion against Intelligent Design, aligning it with creationist and religious (otherwise unscientific) antecedents, the viability of “intelligent design is the only viable explanation” sunk a little. So, the Discovery Institute has taken a new approach to their “teach the controversy” campaign. They are now re-directing their attack against evolution itself, as was the case in the early 20th Century debacle that made the Scopes-Monkey Trial possible.

What strikes me as odd about this move is that it seems to take a feature away from the scientific process (falsification), and claims it as a radically subversive technique that belongs to anti-Evolutionists. I guess that in a sense good science is always at odds with itself. Many of us are familiar with Karl Popper’s argument about the necessity for falsification in science. What the Discovery Institute is suggesting is that Evolutionary Theory is all or nothing; that every “hole” is the noose around which Evolutionary Theory can be hung; and that the viability of Evolutionary theory as a whole hinges upon the filling up of every one of these holes in a way wholly consistent with how the theory has always been imagined. This last part is really basic rationale underpinning the false-dichotomy between Evolution and Intelligent Design, and the best reason why Intelligent Design (as a so-called theory and as a movement) cannot be accepted as scientific.

This points to a dangerous failure in understanding how theories work. Of course, if something as fundamental to Evolutionary Theory as the age of the universe/earth or the nature of hereditary genetics were shown to be otherwise, there would be serious problems for the theory. As Hume spoke of miracles though, extra-ordinary claims (this huge body of otherwise tested, demonstrated and useful scientific theory is just on the whole wrong) require extra-ordinary evidence.

Such evidence as far as I know is not lurking in the kinds of gaps that IDers want to fill with their notion of intelligent design, but rather in the falsification of otherwise well established facts of science. The targets of Intelligent Design are not these structural supports though, but rather the frontiers of scientific explanation that are there simply because we haven’t taken the theory far enough. In other words, Intelligent Design treats the built-in limits of science (i.e. the practical fact that it hasn’t explained everything) as grounds for its failure at a much deeper level; as license to abandon scientific thinking altogether.

What the Intelligent Design movement signals to me is a staggering failure to think scientifically, not because its MacGuffin (an intelligent designer) is ludicrous, but because its goals amount to the end of sound theory itself.

Advertisements

Written by Joe

November 14, 2007 at 8:38 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The part I do not understand is why some conservatives believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. Does it somehow take the divinity out of God for her to work through an elaborate, on-going process without the obvious intention? Humanity, to religion, is an investment by the powers that be: as such, we must assume that God like an investor has a focus on long term projects.

    If anything, the tautological notion that evolution requires “intelligence”, defined in this case as the reasoning necessary to pursue a goal, displays the contradiction of ID. How can, for a man of any faith, be so arrogant to believe he can give God stock tips when his life is merely a millisecond at the NYSE, let alone think that the means are inseparable from a perceivable ends?

    Jonathan

    November 14, 2007 at 9:02 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: