Intelligent design is not anti-science
All this dovetails with my position that creationism is a reasonable topic to discuss in schools when the students hold this belief, and attempting to suppress discussion is utterly counter-productive. Creationism is no longer considered a valid scientific theory, but this does not make it anti-science, and the discussion of why creationism is not a scientific theory is a legitimate scientific topic. It lays out the boundary conditions for our modern understanding of the scientific process. Similarly, phlogiston is no longer considered a valid scientific theory, but there is nothing anti-scientific about discussing phlogiston – in fact, discussing failed theories teaches far more about the scientific method than enforcing a dogmatic interpretation of science. The use of phrases like “anti-science” reveals partisan psychology at work.
Modern scientists should be sufficiently secure in their scientific beliefs to have discussions on any topic relating to science without it being a cause of cognitive dissonance. When this is not possible, the objective perspective which scientists strive to attain (but never truly can) is entirely lost, and in the absence of even the intent of objectivity the essence of the modern scientific method is obscured. Since the scientific community disagrees on so many facts, it is absurd to treat any aspect of modern scientific knowledge as dogma – when this happens, we have fallen into the nightmare of epistemic dictatorship I lampooned earlier this week in the nonsense piece about the Science Pope.
Professor Reiss’ resignation is an embarrassment to the Royal Society, whose distinguished history spans almost 350 years. When the Royal Society was founded, various forms of creationism were the dominant theories of the origin of life. To contend that these older beliefs are no longer permissible topics for discussion is to irreparably harm the credibility of the scientific endeavour, to violate its assumption of neutrality, and to radically fail to uphold the grand tradition of discussing any and all aspects of human knowledge in a spirit of open debate, upon which all scientific institutions are alleged to be founded.
Sir Isaac Newton, one of the progenitors of modern science, held views that accorded with those of the proponents of Intelligent Design, saying of the Universe: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
(link)
There is nothing partisan about labelling creationism as anti-science. Creationists claim scientific support for their religious dogma, and that is should therefore be taught as science in science classes. If they were not making this demand, there would be no issue. The fact that they present the issue as being a conflict between science and religion shows that this claim is an outright falsehood. ID proponents are no different from any other creationists in this respect. Although they claim that their motivation is scientific, not religious, they are also demanding that we redefine the fundamental nature of science to accommodate non-naturalistic explanations – which would make science impossible.
Of course, the real issue is not one of either science or religion. It’s about honesty. I oppose creationism not for any particular scientific or religious reason, but because I dislike the deep and systematic dishonesty with which they promote their cause. Coming as it does from those claiming the moral high ground it is detestable hypocrisy.
The previous commenter accurately describes the situation. ID/Creationism actively misleads/misinforms/distorts/lies to hide the fact that it has no rational argument to support it. To stifle criticism they attempt to abolish the basics of science, because without it they would be able to classify there superstition as science. This effort to erode science is also known as anti-science.
To be fair, the anti-science movement is not limited to creationists:
http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/11/crank-magnetism.html
http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-am-galileo-argument.html
http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/02/war-on-science.html
Interesting perspective. Both of you seem to have led with the premise ID is un-scientific without:
1. describing what the brightline for science is
2. how going beyond the standard definition of science in the science classroom is harmful
3. how ID is unscientific (we can provide instances of contrast between the two)
The current disadvantage is the elephant in the room, which exclusion encourages to go on.
Sure its probably outside the standard definition of science, but I would claim that given that its part of the history and philosophy of science and the history of idea and the history of our nations–that inclusion helps tell that story better. If diversity and the marketplace of ideas, and history mean anything, other significant voices deserve a voice at the table.
The “brightline” (whatever that means) is the science investigates phenomena which can be observed and measured, builds explanations which set constraints on possible outcome, and tests those explanations by acquiring further evidence. It’s called the scientific method.
Science works. It has made possible the technologies on which we rely for our current unprecedented prosperity and comfort. To try to redefine science for no reason other than to pander to the religious dogma of some people is no reason to reject its fundamental assumption of naturalism.
ID is not science because it offer no testable explanation for anything. All it offers in “evidence” is a purported falsification of evolution in small incremental steps, and does so by deliberately and specifically ignoring most of the scientific understanding of evolution. As I wrote previously, it’s dishonest, and the fact that some at least of its luminaries have a perfectly respectable track record of scientific research and publication shows that they are lying about the nature of science.
Lets be clear, looking at fossils is a crime scene investigation. Its not test tubes. Determining differences over time in the fossil record isn’t a the science that chemistry or physics is.
Scientists make qualitative judgements all the time–and you don’t say they should leave peer reviewed journals. At some level you are dealing with making qualitative judgements based on your gut. Even with data you are interpreting some data and leaving some out based on a best guess.
I’m making an argument that the theory of science belongs in the classroom–which you don’t seem to come to grips with. I make the argument based on the marketplace of ideas & basically not sweeping it under the rug (which is why there isn’t the clear direct confrontation). My argument is teach the controversy (although, admittedly thats sure to get politicized).
compassioninpolitics,
You are confusing a number of issues.
Just like “Scientific Creationism” before it, Intelligent Design is not science, it is religion masquerading as science. Therefore it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution to be taught as science in public school. This has already been established.
If a student brings up Intelligent Design, or Creationism, or Geocentrism, or Flat earth theory, a competent science teacher will address the student’s arguments and show why they are wrong. No one is advocating that Intelligent Design should be banned from discussion.
It is also completely legitimate to teach about Intelligent Design, just as it is ok to teach about other religious ideas, in history or social studies.
I hope that helps.
“No one is advocating that Intelligent Design should be banned from discussion.
It is also completely legitimate to teach about Intelligent Design, just as it is ok to teach about other religious ideas, in history or social studies.”
I guess I’m fine with that.
“Lets be clear, looking at fossils is a crime scene investigation. Its not test tubes. Determining differences over time in the fossil record isn’t a the science that chemistry or physics is.”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Evolutionary theory is not built on studies of fossils. It’s built on studies of extant populations of organisms. As is the case with all sciences, it is based on gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses based on the evidence and testing them by acquiring further evidence. It’s called the scientific method. Evolutionary biology is just the same as any other field of science in this respect.
“Scientists make qualitative judgements all the time–and you don’t say they should leave peer reviewed journals. ”
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
Scientists try to eliminate subjective judgements in their research. They publish their findings in scientific journals. Those journals are peer-reviewed. It’s a system which despite it’s flaws – and no scientist familiar with the system would claim that it is perfect – serves us extremely well as a means for disseminating scientific findings.
“At some level you are dealing with making qualitative judgements based on your gut. Even with data you are interpreting some data and leaving some out based on a best guess.”
Any scientist who deliberately ignores data because of some gut instinct is not practising sound science.
“I’m making an argument that the theory of science belongs in the classroom–which you don’t seem to come to grips with.”
I’m perfectly happy with the idea that the theory of science should be taught in the classroom, and have no idea why you should think that I would oppose it. For example, if you had learned something about the nature of science you wouldn’t be making ill-informed assertions about the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
“I make the argument based on the marketplace of ideas & basically not sweeping it under the rug (which is why there isn’t the clear direct confrontation). ”
What “marketplace of ideas”? ID is nothing more than an attempt to sneak “scientific” creationism into the science classroom, and does so by deceit and misrepresentation. Read the judge’s ruling on the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial.
“My argument is teach the controversy (although, admittedly thats sure to get politicized).”
What controversy? There is no controversy within the scientific community over whether or not evolution occurs, or that it is the processes which has produced the rich variety of life on this planet. There are arguments over the contribution different mechanisms have made to the process of evolution.
The “controversy” manufactured by the ID movement is based on the outright lie that ID has validity as an alternative to evolution. I have no problem in exposing children to the idea that there are conflicts within science over the interpretation of evidence. It’s by exploring ways of resolving such conflicts that science advances.
I *do* have a problem with exposing children to ID because I don’t want children to be taught falsehoods.
Data: You say….”Any scientist who deliberately ignores data because of some gut instinct is not practising sound science.”
I would suggest the cause of the universe is such a question. I’m not suggesting they outright ignore evidence, but rather they see particular data as more important than other data.
The Trial: You say…..”Read the judge’s ruling on the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial.”
I should probably read this. I do know they used “wedge” logic for understanding if it was a religious theory or not, which has some questionable premises. Kants categorical imperative would fair for the same reason as would our Declaration of Independence.
To be fair, I’m ID has advanced since then and the argument was I believe over a limited model of ID (i.e. only the flaggellum issue was discussed).
Is there a controversy?
You say…..”What controversy? There is no controversy within the scientific community over whether or not evolution occurs, or that it is the processes which has produced the rich variety of life on this planet. There are arguments over the contribution different mechanisms have made to the process of evolution.”
Yes and yes. This is an signed document from multiple scientists on this question. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
The fact that this went to court….and that we’re having this discussion proves there is a controversy. There is a philosophical, legal/political, and scientific controversy.
At the very least kids should know the limits of science to finding solution (along with the upsides to A/B testing).
Micro vs. Macro evolution. I agree that evolution takes place and is taking place probably on a minute by minute basis…..my question is to what extend species evolve into or branch into other species. To my knowledge this is not happening–and certainly not on a widespread basis. To determine if this is the case, you’re always returning to fossil records for your proof. However, this type of investigation mirrors a crime scene vs. traditional laboratory and test tube science because you can’t A/B test historical incidences particularly well.
Theory of science. You say…..”I’m perfectly happy with the idea that the theory of science should be taught in the classroom, and have no idea why you should think that I would oppose it.” Well at least we’re agreed here.
For those who suggest otherwise……I recently read an article which called Intelligent design more properly “meta-science” which is something I’m probably more comfortable with myself.
One problem with the current paradigm–is its like packing for a trip and needing to get all your clothes in the suitcase, but not caring if they are in or out…….and just zipping around. Issues which are both inside and outside the realm of science get excluded & ignored–which isn’t a particularly good solution.
Further, someone who is interested in this conflict should also read the critiques of scientific materialism to get a full understanding of the issue.