| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Virgil" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 06:55:36 PM |
| Object: |
'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
Other views: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in America. A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy
Sayler in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler,
in keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a number
of egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of
science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent designer
or the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various
aspects of the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a
philosophical posture? The answer to both those questions is a
resounding no!
When scientists dismiss the idea of creationism it is not out of
arrogance, but rather because of the nature of legitimate scientific
discourse. Consider the difference between "X is unexplained by science"
and "X is unexplainable by science." The former expresses the notion
that science hasn't yet explained a particular phenomenon (but will with
time and effort); whilst the latter asserts that under no circumstances
could science offer a satisfactory explanation.
By definition, if genuinely supernatural phenomena exist they cannot be
explained by natural processes. Science could not, in principle, offer
us any insight about such "forces." This is because science
distinguishes itself by the attempt to discover self-contained and
coherent naturalistic explanations of empirically verifiable natural
phenomena. Science is thus essentially naturalist.
I doubt that "intelligent design theorists" think that our "designer" is
some type of X-files style aliens that genetically engineered us. Rather
they wish to sneak a transcendental and thus supernatural designer, into
the explanation for the origins of life on earth. Can you guess who this
designer might be? That's right, it's a supreme being called God.
Supernatural explanations cannot be scientific ones, as in considering
them, we move beyond the limits of empirical science into the realm of
metaphysics. That is why intellectually honest scientists cannot accept
"intelligent design" as a serious scientific hypothesis.
Science, like all complex concepts, ultimately makes philosophical
assumptions. The real question is; are those philosophical premises
rational, rigorous and reasonable? Science presumes that there is an
empirically based reality that exists independently of humans and we can
achieve objective knowledge of that reality. Not all philosophers agree
that this is a reasonable position; Descartes insisted that nothing
beyond knowledge of the self ("I exist") could be truly known (this is
known as solipsism).
Even today, in our modern scientific age, post-modern philosophers
insist upon the relativity of all truth, because they assert that
knowledge is "constructed" and is always subjective at some level.
Science rejects such ideas.
The foundation of science is the idea of falsification. This idea is
very simple. If I make a prediction about an empirical phenomenon (e.g.
all swans are white), anyone can test my hypothesis by looking at the
objects that we define as swans. If a blue swan were observed, clearly
my initial hypothesis would be rejected. A new hypothesis (all swans are
either blue or white) is formulated and it, in turn, can be tested by
anyone. Thus science is about the production of non-personal and
explicitly public knowledge.
Theological questions (e.g., is there only one God or many?) cannot be
tested in the same way because at root such "knowledge" or belief
systems are private and profoundly personal. Intelligent design is a
theological position not a scientific hypothesis. It cannot be
scientifically tested.
Sayler seems to think that direct evidence of a designer can be found
in a test-tube or on a microscope slide, an idea that most Christians, I
think, would find offensive as it implies that the only truths that
humans can know are scientific. Logically if Sayler wants to turn God
into a scientific hypothesis, he is actually venerating science above
God. If no direct evidence of a designer could be found then does Sayler
want those of faith to abandon their philosophical beliefs? What an
absurd theological straitjacket he's got himself into!
Science is a determined effort to overcome our subjectivity. This is a
taxing affair; it requires that our ideas are open to constant revision
(demanding intellectual imagination, rigor and self-discipline). The
systematic process of experimentation and observation rigorously tests
our thoughts about the material world, eventually eliminating incorrect
ideas and concepts.
Science, because it is public knowledge, contains within itself the
device of self-correction. That is its crowning glory. Many endeavors
contain no such device; one might cite psychoanalysis as an example.
Equally there is no such thing as experimental theology. Science is not
private dogma; it is not validated by appeals to authority, but rather
by appeals to the publicly available evidence.
Public education exists to assure that no one is denied access to the
basics of public knowledge and the necessary skills required to
critically evaluate that knowledge. It does our children a great
disservice if we deliberately avoid discussing ideas and concepts that
may challenge some of the belief systems of students (or rather their
parents). Would it really be acceptable to teach that earth could
equally be round or flat because some kids have parents that believe in
a flat earth? What about kids with a Marxist parent that insists
historical materialism is given "equal" treatment during history
lessons? To bring private beliefs into public education can only
undermine any rational notion of what education is about and leave our
schools in ruins.
The science classroom is not the place to argue out the legitimacy of
our private, personal or political beliefs. To insist on "equal"
treatment for a particularly narrow and rather unsophisticated brand of
Christian theology in our biology lessons is to allow a covert form of
religious bullying to take place.
When science and religion are properly understood there is no need for
conflict between them. However, if people insist on interpreting
religious texts as scientific textbooks, then conflicts are unavoidable.
In the wider context, an attempt to justify faith (belief in the
supernatural) with scientific evidence (or indeed philosophical proofs)
contradicts the very notion of faith; how can it be faith if it is
supported by direct evidence or rationally compelling arguments? Such
exercises, including the sophistry of "intelligent design theory" offend
both scientists and believers alike.
To quote the Christian theologian Kierkegaard, "Attempts to prove God's
existence are an excellent subject for a comedy of the highest lunacy."
I think that is something thoughtful people of faith and scientists can
agree upon. If a supreme being does exist, the notion that we, as quite
limited domesticated primates, could really comprehend the otherness and
deeply mysterious nature of such a being is hubris on our part.
As Darwin, commenting on the idea of what is God's nature, suggested, "Š
the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might
as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe
what he can."
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
