Is IDism part of science?

[harvey1]

As many know, there is an on-going court case regarding the constitutionality of including a reference to Intelligent Design in the science curriculum of the Dover Area School District (Pennsylvania). My stance is that it is not unconstitutional for ID to be referenced as a scientific alternative explanation to natural selection. I don't see how anyone could argue that this is a religious position.

So, my question is, why do you think (or not think) that references to IDism should be forbidden given that there are no known scientific processes to account for many evolutionary features of the natural world?

(Just as clarification, I personally don't think IDism is correct, but I don't see it as a threat to evolutionary science like some of you do.)

[QED]

any ID hypothesis has to account for the evident change that is still taking place in species. A one-off design event won't deliver this unless it equates to the very principle of evolution itself. In that case all the current ID arguments are against themselves. For this reason I say FAPP IDism is discredited.... Yet I think I have demonstrated that the ID hypothesis is totally discredited and not for philosophical reasons. The same might not be true for the universe creating itself however that's another topic.

Well, lucky for you I was able to get into my handy-dandy time machine and travel to the future a 100 years from now (sorry, I can't use it for monetary gain ), and I was able to read a few books on what ET had to say about this. Here's what they said:

Nothing like a good bit of Harvey SF to get the brain-cells throbbing first thing in the morning! I'm still struggling to decode your story (as it's not easy figuring out who's who in the plot). But I can't help feeling you've missed my point. If I read you right, you're saying that evolutionary theory might, for example, easily be missing a one-off intervention by ET at a critical moment. But this is not the essence of the well-known brand of IDism being discussed.

You're attempting here to show that I haven't proved anything -- a fact that you feel must be a certainty given the fallibilistic nature of science. But all I'm pointing out is that the well-known brand of ID is all about criticizing a misrepresentation of the ToE. In my quote above I was trying to give a little boost to the notion of 'general' ID by permitting the principle of evolution itself to be a subject of debate, but then had to point out that as current IDism is focussed on the dismissal of evolutionary theory, they are in effect dismissing any hope of an eventual, workable account of life based on their own brand of ID.

You make a perfectly valid point about allowing the general principle of ID to be allowed into the classroom -- along the lines of ET implementing or assisting evolution, but in the Realpolitik of US education, ID means one thing and one thing only.

[Jose]

Well, you sure showed me!

I should live in Missouri, the Show Me state (whatever that means).

Actually, I don't have enough knowledge of biology and IDism, for that matter, to be able to debate the scientific issues. I didn't realize that evolutionary scientists dispute the notion that IDism has modelled the wrong version of evolutionary theory. That would certainly change the way in which their particular hypothesis should be considered viable if it can't properly defend against the charge you have made. Although, I have to say, I get the feeling that you don't distinguish between the IDers and YECers, which is troubling if true since some of the people making the ID claims are fairly well-published, are they not? Of course, it doesn't I guess matter how well-published one is if they misunderstand the theory that they are criticizing.

I link the YECs and the IDers because of the Wedge Strategy

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
----
Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

This sounds kinda YECish to me; certainly it is biblical literalism of which they speak.

However, we must realize that we humans construct models of the world. The models are evaluated based on our limited observations, and our conclusions are not always correct. In fact, many of our best theories have been later shown to be an approximation. This is one of the major arguments against scientific realism. So, while some realists like to talk in terms of their models being the way reality is, a quick review of the history of science shows that the models can be dumped on the garbage heap of ideas (or at least put in the recycle bin) once the later models are introduced.

I agree. It is said that new hypotheses have a half-life of about 5 years. There's a lot of dumping and replacing of explanations.

This is rather less true of Theories. They have earned the name Theory by virtue of having withstood test after test after test. With all of them except the Theory of Evolution, everyone seems quite happy to accept them as fact. It's only where Genesis is concerned that the trouble starts. On the other hand, it is precisely the fact that evolution appears superficially to contradict a superficial reading of Genesis that evolution has become the most strongly-supported theory in biology, and perhaps in all of science. So many people have tried to find fault with it that it has been tested more than any other theory.

I'm not talking, of course, with voting on truth. I'm saying that there is fallibility and uncertainty with regards to what the actual truth is. Therefore, we have to have a certain degree of humility when it comes to understanding nature...

We should, indeed. Scientists live their lives with this assumption as a given. We know--from brutal experience--how hard it is to get things right. We never work on questions to which we know the answer, which means that we have no criteria for recognizing the answer when we get there. The best criterion is whether an explanation survives many tests--and even then, we don't bestow any name other than "theory."

The problem comes in transmitting science from scientists to teachers to students. An additional problem comes in the history of science teaching. The tradition has been to bring students up to speed as quickly as possible, so they can start "doing science" on their own, and asking new questions. As a result, teaching has become the listing of conclusions as if they are facts. When pre-service teachers are taught this way, they go into the classroom and present things as Fact. The notion never gets through that science is limited in what it can do, and tentative in its claims.

...we have to consider all the possibilities, and this means exposing a new generation to those possibilities. Some communities want certain possibilities to be known to their students that are not mainstream, but they are still real possibilities. If ID falls in that category, and I understand that you don't think it does, then why not give a community some say so in what their kids learn about. If it is a real possibility based on what we currently know of the world, then I see nothing wrong with kids learning such things.

As I've noted before, we fail in science teaching (and I include myself here) in that we tend to present "what's known." We should present the data, and let students work out their own explanations. We can't do this for everything, but we can for many things. This would help people learn how science really works.

But you know what? When teachers try this, the students' parents complain that the teacher isn't teaching science. They want their kids to be memorizing facts.

Of course, the debate then focuses on what is really a scientific possibility, and this is something that voting on by any particular organization is not the way.

So we are left with allowing each discipline to determine what is valid material for students to learn in that area. We should be wary of small groups of parents deciding what is best for teachers to teach. There are those who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen. Should we allow this, or should we say that there are certain things that are essential, even if it makes parents uncomfortable.

However, in the case of intelligent design, it seems you agree that it is scientifically possible that ET (or God) could have interferred with the evolutionary history of life, but if I understand you correctly you say that the way in which the IDers have formulated their hypothesis is incorrect. Is that right? If so, then how do you resolve this disconnect between something being scientifically possible (e.g., ET having interferred with the evolutionary history of life) and a hypothesis that suggests that the complexity of life could be considered evidence that such a thing is possible?

Indeed, I understand ID logic to be based upon false premises, probably unwittingly. Still, the science tells us only so much. We cannot rule out the possibility that ET seeded our planet with life. Nor can we rule out the possibility that god has been guiding everything all along, or that he destroys and re-creates the universe every instant. However, a "scientific" explanation is one that is ultimately testable, and not based solely on faith. Indeed, we must have faith that humans are capable of figuring things out, but that's using "faith" as a synonym of "confidence," rather than as "belief." Invoking the supernatural is Faith, requiring belief in something that cannot be investigated. So, invoking gods is unscientific. ET models on the other hand, are potentially testable, in that we might someday discover that ETs exist. Until we do, however, we don't get very far with this kind of explanation.

Your future history is not, so far as we know, impossible. I would assume as you do, that it is unlikely based on what we know now. It is ridiculous to entertain such a possibility as "probable truth," but it is not a ridiculous notion per se.

Even if ET's involvement was not a major episode in the evolutionary history of life, the planet has been here for 4.5-4.6 billion years or so, and that alone justifies a reasonable possibility that ET could have visited. And, if they visited at least once, why is it so unreasonable to consider that they made an influence on earth? I don't ask these questions because I believe ET did it, I ask them because I am not scientifically certain that they didn't. As such, I feel compelled to say that we must allot a small window of opportunity that our knowledge of evolutionary theory can be missing this piece. I think it unlikely that ET is part of that piece, but I can't scientifically discount it. I'd like to get your opinion on this.

Given what we know of evolution, I would say that it is "not unreasonable" that ETs "seeded" the planet with life. Modest life, to be sure, and I can't imagine why anyone with the technological capability to get here would just sprinkle the place with primitive prokaryotes, but it's possible, I guess. I would argue that it is very unlikely that ETs had much to do with evolution, once life arose. We know how DNA replication works, and how a variety of agents damage DNA, and how DNA repair seems to be sloppy. We know of no way to target DNA damage, and thus mutation, to any particular region of a chromosome. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that ETs would be able to do so. A supernatural being could, so theistic evolution is a fine model, provided that the supernatural being is covering his tracks by making the mutations look like they occur at random.

I speak here of the mechanism of evolution. I'd say that it's pretty darned certain. Indeed, even YECs seem to buy it--but they call it microevolution and consider it to be "not evolution." Given the certainty of the mechanism, it is inescapable that evolution must occur. Given the mechanism, it is clear that evolution by this mechanism would give some pattern of common descent. Given the mechanism, it is also pretty certain that, if we did it again, it would come out differently.

However, ETs could play a role in some of the bits. Maybe ETs threw the asteroid at Chixulub 65 million years ago, knocking out the dinosaurs and paving the way for the diversification of mammals. Who knows? Maybe god did it. All we can tell at this point is that there was one heck of a impact, sending a tsunami all the way to where Waco, Texas is now.

there's a great deal of disagreement in science, and with the forces of creationism pressing against science, my concern is that some scientists are becoming too adament in pressing for a monolithic view of the world. In fact, I think metaphysical naturalism is being paraded about with people like Dawkins in becoming this monolithic view. I don't think that is a good thing at all. I think that more scientists need to speak as freely as Carl Sagan did before IDism had become popular (again)

Dawkins does go overboard on this, doesn't he? It's not necessary, and in fact, works against him. I've heard a few others express similar views, even going so far as to say that the fact of evolution proves that god cannot exist. That's not only silly, it's antagonistic, and completely unwarranted--the data lead to no such conclusion. The data indicate that evolution is inescapable fact (even if we don't know all of the details), but it is impossible to rule out the guiding hand of god.

Unfortunately, the forces of creationism have misled the public into thinking that there really is an either/or choice: evolution or religion. They conveniently overlook the fact that 40% of the public are religious and accept evolution, and 40% of scientists are religious and accept evolution. The difference between the public and scientists is that among the public, there are more who accept the YEC view than accept the idea that gods are unnecessary, while among scientists, there are extremely few who accept the YEC view, and more who accept the idea that natural processes may be sufficient.

I think this is an honest and open-minded portrayal of what can be said in any Biology 101 textbook in the country. Perhaps the modern IDers have screwed this up a bit, as you suggest, but the kernel of Sagan's remarks are what I have in mind when I say that a community has the right to put a brief reference to a scientific fringe hypothesis in a large textbook of science if that is what they wish. It does not harm a student's ability to learn science.

The tricky part is how to put this into Biology 101. One may discuss the general notion that most theists of most denominations accept evolution, but one may not single out any particular denomination for special treatment (positive or negative). Unfortunately, even mentioning the possibility that god could work behind the scenes (e.g. direct the specific nucleotide changes that occur in the production of all gametes of all species, and direct the particular eggs and sperm that get together to build new individuals) is taken by some individuals of some denominations as an Attack on Christianity. Of course, these people are likely to take a lot of plain science as Attacks on Christianity, too. The bottom line, according to most scientists who have studied this issue carefully, is that we should make it clear that science cannot address god one way or another, and merely studies the natural world. We can't even say "the natural world that god created" because that phrasing amounts to an endorsement of one religion that may be offensive to students of other religions.

There is no inherent atheism in science in general, or in evolution in particular.

But, you can't have it both ways, Jose. You must say that (a) evolutionary science rules out a Designer working in the background (metaphysical naturalism), or that (b) evolutionary science cannot rule out a Designer(s) in the backgroud because we don't have any way to scientifically investigate such claims, so we are limited to natural explanations and our models of the natural world are suited for that purpose (methodological naturalism). If you take the former approach, you are saying that science is inherently metaphysical in its approach (basically atheistic or possibly deistic with regard to the evolution of life on earth). If you take the later approach, then you cannot so easily close the door on "God did it" explanations. You can only say those approaches are not scientific approaches.

Looking back at what I've said, it seems to me that I've been fairly consistent that science cannot address god. We cannot prove god exists, and we cannot prove otherwise--at least, based on data that have been gathered so far. If god chose to reveal himself, then maybe there would be data that point to god; so far, he has not done so. That is, science can be no more than what you call methodological naturalism. Its methods work only in the natural world. For that reason, scientists in general, and science teachers as well, generally preface the teaching of evolution with exactly what you've said: "god did it" explanations are not scientific explanations, and are therefore not a part of science classes.

The trouble is (from what I've learned on these forums), many creationists consider god to be a part of the natural world. They do not accept this statement.

They also think that a "scientific explanation" is "any explanation that uses scientific terminology," regardless of whether there may be data that show other explanations are better, or even data that rule it out entirely. That is: the public seems not to know what science is and how it works. They make the incorrect assumption that anything said by a scientist claims to be Absolute Truth, in the same sense that they assume anything said in the bible is Absolute Truth. They just don't hear (or understand) when we say that "our current explanation based on what we know so far" is such-and-such. Witness, for example, how angry some people seem to get about the Big Bang.

Indeed, there are those who believe that understanding the "rules" that god put in place to make the world work gives us greater understanding of god, and allows us to see even more clearly how great his powers are. Designing a system that would evolve is a testament to his greatness.

Sure, one could adopt a deistic view of God, however what purpose would such a God serve in such a world? We would be pushed all the way back before the big bang, and then what about the physicists that say that the universe inflated baby universes which eventually brought about our world? Is God so great that God can even intend a world such as our own given all the randomness happening between now and some distant past when inflation of baby universes began (assuming it was a finite process)? It would seem that such a deistic account is also falsifiable by science. This puts science in the religious business as far as I'm concerned, and I think there are a fair number of metaphysical naturalists (mainly atheists) who are saying this very thing.

In Newton's day, this was the view of the relationship between science and religion. The understanding of gravity eliminated the need for angels pushing the planets. Current creationism would claim that this is an Atheistic Belief, but at that time, it was taken as Further Evidence of the Greatness of God. He created gravity! Dang, that's clever!

Because people interpreted Newton's hypothesis, which is now the Theory of Gravity, as evidence for the greatness of god, does that make Newton's science religion? Does that put science in the religion business? No. Science says nothing about gods. It merely describes the universe we live in. This is why scientists from all over the world, of wildly different faiths, can all work on the same kinds of problems and communicate openly at international meetings. Science does not address Faith, and is therefore compatible with all faiths. The only exceptions are those denominations that choose to interpret their particular scripture in such a rigid, fundamentalist way that they not only refuse to accept scientific findings, but they also alienate other denominations of the same faith.

In any event, no deistic account is falsifiable. It is impossible to rule out creation by a magical god, provided that said god created things to look exactly as they do now. It is possible to rule out a global flood, and creation on October 26th, 4004 BC, because we can consider the Flood Hypothesis and the Young Age Hypothesis to be first-level scientific hypotheses, and we can test them. They turn out to be easily falsified. But we cannot falsify the "Appearance of Age" hypothesis, which posits that god created things in 4004 all right, but did so to make it look like the earth is really old, and that evolution happened, and that the big bang happened. Nor can we falsify the idea that everything that seems natural is actually occurring because god is directing it, we just can't tell.

But, what's a big fallacy in all of this? One big fallacy, I think, is that science is unable to deal with ultimate cause. If we were to agree with Bertrand Russell we'd have to say that science doesn't deal with causes at all. However, that's a little extreme. The more conservative position, and I think the right position, is that science deals with models. Those models try to explain the phenomena in question, and that a model becomes scientific when it can be accounted for using methodological approaches familiar to science (e.g., mathematics, experimentation, observation, principles of parsimony, aesthetics of theories, etc.). We give up all the metaphysical business which is more of the business of philosophy and religion, and focus on the merit of scientific models.

I humbly suggest that this fallacy is in the mind of the public. Scientists operate on the assumption that ultimate cause is inaccessible, and therefore don't mess with it. We know we are simply collecting data and trying to explain it; we use the word "hypothesis" or "model" to refer to our explanations. The public, being really interested in ultimate causes, assumes incorrectly that the goal of science is to reveal ultimate causes. They leap to the conclusion that a scientific model claims to be ultimate cause.

This is part of the general problem that people tend not to have a clear understanding of The Nature of Science. Difficulties in teaching evolution usually turn out to be difficulties in communicating the nature of science.

Once science steps over into the business of determining what is the case versus what can be successfully modelled to account for our observations, then I think it has become metaphysically naturalist. It is no longer neutral.

Science doesn't do that, and cannot do that. There may be individual scientists who make claims beyond what the data warrant (ie "there is no god" when the data merely say "there is no evidence for or against god"). But then, there are individual creationists who make outrageous claims as well. The behavior of an individual doesn't necessarily relate to the basic principles of the field.

I should imagine that in most instances, parents would want their kids to be taught correct science and math, and not incorrect material. This should be especially true if they are paying the bills through taxes or through direct tuition.

But, nobody knows what is the correct account of everything that happens. Our only scientific access to this is through scientifically validated models. As part of that process there's a great deal of hypotheses currently on the table that need to be considered, and many of them will prove untenable. Some will prove fruitful. There are hypotheses that are more favorable to a theistic account of the world (e.g., hypotheses that presuppose platonism), and there are hypotheses that are more favorable to an atheistic account of the world (e.g., hypotheses that the universe created itself). There is nothing wrong in educating future generations of the hypotheses that are "on the table" and may eventually be falsified or simply abandoned for their lack of promise in bringing any new line of research to the table.

But, time in the classroom is limited, and the No Child Left Behind law requires that they be tested on the memorization of facts. NCLB doesn't give a hill of beans whether students actually understand anything. The education literature reports that high-stakes testing invariably cause declines in the quality of science teaching. While I agree that we should discuss not only the data but also alternative explanations, the fact is that it won't happen. At least, it won't happen until we can get rid of NCLB, and we can re-train parents to accept the teaching of independent thought instead of rote memorization.

Along those lines: several years ago, our state department of education attempted to upgrade the tests that are given periodically to assess student progress--sort of mini-NCLB's, but without the threat of punishing the schools if the students don't "measure up." They suggested some questions on the English part of the test that would require writing open-ended responses to interesting questions. Parents and the state legislature went ballistic, and blocked the improvement of the test. Why? These questions would have led to students thinking for themselves. I found it Really Weird.

Teaching science is not teaching atheism. It is teaching how the world works, based on the data that exist in the world.

Teaching metaphysical naturalism amounts to atheism, or at least very close to the atheist position. As I showed above, it becomes pretty easy for some scientists to take this position with regard to their interpretation of evolutionary theory, and this becomes an avenue how science can mistakenly teach some basic tenets of atheism (i.e., metaphysical naturalism).

But no one is teaching metaphysical naturalism. No one is teaching that science rules out god, or that science automatically assumes that there is no god. The creationist lobby has put that straw man into the public arena in order to sow seeds of mistrust of science. They have been successful, because of the general misconceptions of the Nature of Science.

I would argue that, if we can show these fringe ideas to be flat-out wrong, then we should not teach them. Ever.

I agree. However I think if the fringe idea hasn't been falsified by the accepted models of science, then those fringe ideas are still out there.

True. Unfortunately, most of them have been falsified, but their proponents keep on pushing them. They ignore the falsification, claiming it's part of conspiracy to suppress their work. Creationist and ID papers aren't published in the standard scientific journals "because of this conspiracy" rather than because they aren't good science. "Because of this conspiracy," IDers have to resort to taking over school boards and legislating that their fringe ideas must be taught (in this case their already-falsified "arguments against evolution").

To avoid the appearance (or fact) of favoring one religion over the others, let's just stick to the science. It's completely neutral.

I quite agree, as long as it is methodological naturalism and not allowing metaphysical naturalism to creep into the mix. This is what I see all too often, and I think it is a mistake of scientists to do this.

I would ask: do you see this in the classroom or just in the opinions of individual scientists? Opinions don't count, because everyone is allowed to hold any opinions they want, valid or otherwise.

I hope it is understood that I am not speaking for anyone but myself. The terms "metaphysical naturalism," "methodological naturalism" are used among scientists, philosophers, and other professions (e.g., education), and I think they are important concepts to avoid inappropriate stances of science on the more philosophical issues.

Certainly. We each speak for ourselves. I claim to report the sentiments of other scientists, but one must recognize that my reports are colored by my own interpretation of their activities. In any event, I would like to say that, despite working with a great many scientists and educators, I had never hear these terms until you mentioned them (hence, my asking what they were). So, they may be used among some of these groups, but I would have to suggest that it is by a minority among them, and that many of us have no clue that the terms exist.

It is unwarranted to bring in explanations that the data do not indicate. By this logic, it has thus far been unwarranted to bring in explanations that involve supernatural interventions by gods. It is also unwarranted to extend conclusions beyond what the data indicate. By this logic, it has thus far been unwarranted to claim that there are no gods, or that gods have not been intimately involved in the natural world. There are simply no observations at all that say anything for or against gods of any kind.

Agreed. It is also unwarranted for science to take a particular stance with regard to ontology. This includes metaphysical versions of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, nominalism, etc.. Of course a scientific hypothesis can be based on a metaphysical depiction of the world, but the models mustn't become statements supporting that metaphysical nature of the world (e.g., statements about supporting metaphysical naturalism). Others can construe this implication (e.g., propose that evolutionary theory is only consistent with atheism), but this is outside of science.

I think that what I'd said here seemed to me to be a clear statement that science is not, and cannot be, what you call metaphysical naturalism. That may be a philosophical stance that individual scientists may hold, but it just isn't a part of science. It cannot be. Science, by definition, deals only with the interpretation of data. There are no data that pertain to gods.

There are, however, data that speak to a narrowly-literal interpretation of one translation of Genesis. From this, there are those who infer that science in general and evolution in particular is anti-god, atheistic, and an attack on Christianity. The real question is: how do we help these people understand that this view is their own extrapolation beyond the data into the realm of philosophy, and not a part of science?

[harvey1]

That is, science can be no more than what you call methodological naturalism.

Sometimes a discussion ensues where a whole bunch of words have to be said to find out that you basically agree on the major points of the discussion. We seemed to arrive at this point.

In any event, no deistic account is falsifiable. It is impossible to rule out creation by a magical god, provided that said god created things to look exactly as they do now.

This is true if the parties agree that science can be no more than methodological naturalism. However, there's a great many people out there who are not so sophisticated as yourself...

But we cannot falsify the "Appearance of Age" hypothesis, which posits that god created things in 4004 all right, but did so to make it look like the earth is really old, and that evolution happened, and that the big bang happened. Nor can we falsify the idea that everything that seems natural is actually occurring because god is directing it, we just can't tell.

Well, we have to agree on what we mean by the term "falsify." I usually assume that we are talking about for all practical purposes (FAPP) something is falsified, and not falsify in terms of eliminating any kind of ontic possibility that something is the case. The "appearance of age" hypothesis is eliminated by the first definition of falsify. That is, while it is metaphysically possible that a supreme being would give the universe the appearance of age, it can be safely ruled out because it does not pass the test of Occam's razor. I think the "appearance of age" hypothesis is folly, and therefore falsified.

In the case of ET having had made genetic alterations to the genetic code or sprinkling life on earth, I think that particular hypothesis has not been falsified for all practical purposes. It is an unlikely possibility, but given the quick appearance of life on earth, and the large number of planets around nearby stars which have now been detected, it is seems to me likely that intelligent life evolved in other places besides earth. I would even say it is likely that intelligent life has scoped our world like we are likely to scope other worlds in the not too distant future. If an advanced civilization, more advanced than our own, were to survive for a billion years, it's not impossible that they would alter life on other worlds if they thought that having younger brothers and sisters someday would be a nice thing. Of course, I think that part of the speculation is unlikely for earth because of the lack of evidence of there having been extraterrestrial intelligent life on our planet. Surely, if they came they may have foreseen no problem in letting us know they were here, and I think they would have had no problem in leaving electromagnetic beacons that would have survived the fathom of time (perhaps a satellite orbiting the sun?). But, this may be an unwarranted assumption on my part. Nonetheless, this is not the kind of hypothesis that we can rule out under FAPP as we can with the "appearance of age" hypothesis. At least, that's my opinion.

...time in the classroom is limited, and the No Child Left Behind law requires that they be tested on the memorization of facts... no one is teaching metaphysical naturalism. No one is teaching that science rules out god, or that science automatically assumes that there is no god. The creationist lobby has put that straw man into the public arena in order to sow seeds of mistrust of science. They have been successful, because of the general misconceptions of the Nature of Science.

I think for the most part that metaphysical naturalism has been cleaned up in the last few years (through the help of those who recognized the prejudice of how evolutionary theory has been taught up until recently). However, although that might be true, communities may still feel that there is a need for students to hear other possibilities than the obvious metaphysical naturalism that media and scientific authors have done a good job in exposing the public to. I really don't read creationist literature myself, so I don't know what the public is exposed to with regard to what they say. Although, I do read and watch a number of science shows, so I have a pretty good feel for the way in which metaphysical naturalism is left as the only possibility in the shows (and books) that the public is exposed. So, although the classroom has been cleaned up, there is much work to do in terms of cleaning up the way in which metaphysical naturalism has been presented. So, I can somewhat sympathize with those parents out there who are concerned about how their children perceive the implications of evolutionary theory. But, even if I cannot sympathize with them (e.g., a community of atheists who want fringe hypotheses mentioned on how the universe can create itself), I still think that the community has a certain degree of freedom in what is presented. I understand NLCB, but I am talking a blurb of a mention. I don't think it will wreck havoc on test scores if a community has their wish to very briefly expose a student to a hypothesis or two that do not aid the student in performing better on the standardized tests.

"Because of this conspiracy," IDers have to resort to taking over school boards and legislating that their fringe ideas must be taught (in this case their already-falsified "arguments against evolution").

Often, abuse leads to abuse. Years of abuse in teaching metaphysical naturalism both in the classroom and from the likes of Dawkins, I think, is mainly responsible for the backlash happening. Until science has a way of communicating to the metaphysical naturalists that they should make it more clear when they are philosophizing versus teaching scientific theories, this backlash will continue. I think it should be perfectly clear, natural metaphysicalism is a hated belief system for many communities throughout the United States. It's success in "getting out there" in people's faces is a cause of real concern. Those people are fighting back the only way they know how. In any case, most of the harm has been done, so it is vital at this point for more scientists, such as yourself, to publically distance themselves from the metaphysical naturalist position with regard to it as being the scientific position of evolutionary theory. Those scientists, like Gould, who advocated a sort of truce with religion were right in doing so, but unfortunately even Gould still advocated a metaphysical naturalist position with regard to evolutionary theory. He did not go far enough to end the agitation between religion and the way in which evolutionary theory is commonly presented to the public at large.

Opinions don't count, because everyone is allowed to hold any opinions they want, valid or otherwise.

Opinions count when they come from all directions in the way science is taught outside the classroom. Afterall, it's the way it is taught outside the classroom that especially enters the homes of those who find it anti-religious. And, it is for the most part anti-religious. Who are we kidding here? I often watch an hour long science show on evolution, and I walk away shaking my head at the atheists who wrote the script. This is what people see, metaphysical naturalism tied in one package with evolutionary theory. The majority of scientists have a great impact to what the public hears in these shows and books, so they ought to use that influence to get the word out to correct this image (IMHO, of course).

So, they may be used among some of these groups, but I would have to suggest that it is by a minority among them, and that many of us have no clue that the terms exist.

I think you are unfamiliar with the phrases themselves, but you are very familiar with what is being addressed with these phrases. As you said, there is a large disconnect between the way in which Dawkins advocates his metaphysically naturalist position, and the way many working scientists conceive of evolutionary theory within a methodological naturalist framework. You said that more needs to be done to get the data to the kids. I think more importantly, perhaps, is that more needs to be done to get the difference between these two roles for science to the kids. I guess in a perfect world every kid would have to take a philosophy of science course prior to taking science classes, but a little primer on the philosophy of science with regard to why science is unable to favor metaphysical naturalism is much in need.

We should be wary of small groups of parents deciding what is best for teachers to teach. There are those who want history classes to teach that the Holocaust didn't happen. Should we allow this, or should we say that there are certain things that are essential, even if it makes parents uncomfortable.

The teaching of science must be true to science as the endeavor of furthering human knowledge. Parents and communities shouldn't have the option of deciding of what is science or twisting science into what it is not. They should have the option of making their kids aware of hypotheses out there that their kids can agree with and still be within the realm of what is scientifically possible (i.e., FAPP). The same is true of history. If there are hypotheses of history that parents think is important for their kids (e.g., Maupertuis may have discovered natural selection prior to Darwin), then what is the harm? On the other hand, it is not historically possible (i.e., FAPP) that the Holocaust didn't happen. It is metaphysically possible, I suppose, but not historically possible (i.e., FAPP).

There are, however, data that speak to a narrowly-literal interpretation of one translation of Genesis. From this, there are those who infer that science in general and evolution in particular is anti-god, atheistic, and an attack on Christianity. The real question is: how do we help these people understand that this view is their own extrapolation beyond the data into the realm of philosophy, and not a part of science?

I think it has to come from programs such as Nova, Scientific American, etc.. The public responds to what it is taught on the subject, and with regards to how evolutionary theory has traditionally been taught, it has been taught under the guise of metaphysical naturalism.

[Alien]

I'd like you to think hypothetically for a second. Let's imagine that over the coarse of the next 100 years humans make contact with ET, and ET communicates to us that they have visited our planet and were responsible for at least 150-200,000 genetic changes to a number of lifeforms which they thought would bring sufficient complexity to our world in order to support intelligent life.

Then I need a more precise definition of ID.

It seems to me that what you are talking about is not ID, but Genetic Engineering. Your example is totally scientific, to my eyes, but it is not at all what ID claims to be. Your example is a variant of Theory of Evolution (ToE), and it is possible to analyse it scientifically.

I don't reject your example, but I reject ID in its "classical" claim.

Also, IDism is falsifiable in a non-absolutist kind of way. In absolute terms, no scientific belief is falsifiable, Popper failed to demonstrate a falsificationist philosophy for science. It's not that Popper wasn't smart enough, there's inherent problems with falsificationism (just like there are inherent problems with verificationalism). However, for all practical purposes (FAPP), scientific views can be falsified. I think this is also true for IDism. For example, an cellular automata or computer simulation could easily demonstrate how IDism can be falsified. If you can show how complexity can evolve naturally in a simulation, then this falsifies (i.e., FAPP) a key premise of IDism (namely, that life has irreducible complex features that cannot in principle be naturally explained).

This would not be a falsification, because ID supporters negate any evolution mechanism.
What I intend when I say that ID cannot be falsified is that any inductive theory based on a "design" cannot be falsified in principle, because the concept of "design" depends on codfication of information.
And codification of information is a convention. And an observer, without being aware of the convention, cannot demonstrate (and therefore falsify) anything.

For example, how can we demonstrate that the sequence

01101010101

is random, whilst the sequence

11010100011

is intelligently designed? Obviously, we can't, because in some cases I can find an observer who sees information in sequence #1 but not in #2, and another observer may see the opposite. And, in any case, the convention (hence the information) is probably totally different.

Everything is therefore ambiguous, and ambiguity cannot be falsified and cannot be scientific.

As an example, this equates to say that the statement "next saturday I will either win or not the lottery" is not falsifiable.

In order for me to scientifically analyse the theory, I would then like to know how much "intelligent" a design can be quantified before becoming "stupid". Without this relative quantification, the theory remains highly non-scientific, and I can even produce a variant called SD (Stupid Design: the stupid behaviour of humans is the "proof" that someone had some fun in designing us in this way; imagine his laughing if I try to fly from the Grand Canyon without wings!).

I don't know how IDers would answer this objection, but I cannot see it as reason to reject the hypothesis as non-scientific (i.e., not capable of being scientifically analyzed). If a phenomena exists, e.g. irreducible complexity, then this is not the first challenge of a hypothesis that proposes a mechanism to explain the phenomena.

This is why I define ID a theory: it's a hypothesis that gives an explanation.
What I reject is that it is a scientific theory. I am saying that it is not falsifiable because, in order to falsify it, I should be able to find an evidence that proves a Stupid Design as opposed to an evidence that proves an Intelligent Design.

The intrinsic quality of the attribute "Intelligent" already prevents me to falsify the theory.

I don't like the principle of teaching a non-scientific theory as if it were a scientific theory. It is against the Epistemological Principle of Science. It increases confusion and misunderstandings. Faith and Science should never be mixed up.

I don't think ID counts as one of those attractive alternatives, but the alternative has a right to be listed as an alternative within a classroom if the majority of parents in that community request their kids be exposed to the idea itself. I am not for the faith of metaphysical naturalists (basically atheists and agnostics) expelling all other ideas that are out there simply because those ideas contradict their faith.

My conclusion is that, being ID a theory that is non-scientific, it should not be considered as an alternative to a scientific theory. It would be like comparing apples with potatoes.

Apples like Evolution, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics should be teached in the same course.
Potatoes like ID, Christianity and Astrology could be teached in a separate course.

I am not expelling all other ideas, but each vegetable should stay at its place.


PS: I was forgetting: as an Agnostic, I feel having no faith at all.

[harvey1]

For example, how can we demonstrate that the sequence

01101010101

is random, whilst the sequence

11010100011

is intelligently designed? Obviously, we can't, because in some cases I can find an observer who sees information in sequence #1 but not in #2, and another observer may see the opposite. And, in any case, the convention (hence the information) is probably totally different. Everything is therefore ambiguous, and ambiguity cannot be falsified and cannot be scientific.

In this example, I agree, you cannot say which sequence is a consequence of intelligent design, and which is not. However, if we could show a sequence of sufficient length, and we could show a clear pattern in one versus the other, then you can demonstrate intelligent design. For example, if we took the binary sequence of a digitized HDTV signal, and compared it to a random binary sequence of the same length, would you agree that one signal is obviously an HDTV signal made by a human and one is apparently random?

[jellis419]

I have spent the last hour or so reading this thread and I now have a headache. I can't completely blame this thread since my weeks long, intense search for the truth about the origins of life has landed me here and my headache has been a long time coming. I know this post strays a bit from the topic of conversation and for that I apologize but I need help. How can I a person with a limited knowledge of science wade through all the information on both sides of the debate and figure out who is right. I am very familiar with the Bible having grown up with a babtist minister father, I even went to Bob Jones U. I have heard the creationist arguments for years, my high school piano teacher's husband is Kent Hovind. I recently stumbled on some apparant contridictions in Genesis and since no one I have asked can give me a plausible answer I am very confused and scared. Like I mentioned the Bible I know, science I do not. In all honesty the evolutionists are winning the debate in my mind which is why I'm scared. It would take way to much time to list everything I am confused about here but a couple of things;why is the creation account in Genesis 1 contradicted in chapter 2 about the order of creation for man and the animals? For the evolutionists; how do you explain the various fossils from different time eras all in one place and along the same lines why are there fossils lying across different strata(?) levels in the earth? Isn't that impossible? Please forgive my obvious ignorance as I am sure my termonology is wrong. I would appreciate any help that could be offered.

[palmera]

The fact that your mind is opened to the different possibilities is great. Don't worry about which one is right, but rather which one speaks truth to you. It doesn't really matter which one you agree with as long as your view of the world remains open to the infinite possibilities of life. Science can provide a world of unimaginable beauty, on in which patterns are found in the most unexpected places ( study the numbers pi and e and see where they crop up) and no patterns in the most expected places (study the nature of an electron.) Science isn't the place for one to find faith, but rather to challenge old beliefs with new questions- it's a place to learn how to ask better questions and perhaps expand your faith and stretch it to it's limits.

As for creationism v.s. evolution, remember that evolution isn't a belief system, it's merely an observation about the nature and origin of life on earth. Evolutionary biologists will be the first to tell you that evo. theory is a developing process and that "flaws" are merely things which we don't yet understand about this observed process. It's not a complete system of thought or belief- those who view it as such readily provide "flaws" as evidence that the theory is incorrect or inherently wrong. This is nonsense from the view of a scientist who understands that the foundation of evo. theory lies in discovering how to piece together the compendium of information the earth has to offer on the subject- nothing is set into stone. Evolutionary biologists may be sure about some things, but that's because the mathematical odds of certain explanations being wrong are minute.

There are certain things which neither creationists nor evolutionary biologists can explain which will probably never change. There will always be something which doesn't quite fit because we are given (evo. theory.) tiny slices of history to use as lenses into the past.

In regards to genesis, part of the answer to the two creation myths is that they were most likely written by two different authors with two different concerns about creation in mind; and that both were used in the completion of the text because both were scene as necessary due to the utterly mysterious nature of G-d, our origins, and the world. Throughout Genesis you will find evidence of two authors with two concerns both of which were deemed necessary to tell the story of Hebrew experience with G-d. Of course, this view, though the text holds much evidence of it, necessarily dismisses that it was revealed to one person in one time and one place; rather it means that the text must be understood as an inspired creation over time whose concern was not to portray factual history (which is in cases a side effect of the true purpose) but rather was to subject the reader to the truth about the Hebrew experience of the divine, to engage one's understanding of what it means to be human in relationship to the divine. The two creation stories of genesis are a means to that end.

[harvey1]

I have spent the last hour or so reading this thread and I now have a headache. I can't completely blame this thread since my weeks long, intense search for the truth about the origins of life has landed me here and my headache has been a long time coming. I know this post strays a bit from the topic of conversation and for that I apologize but I need help. How can I a person with a limited knowledge of science wade through all the information on both sides of the debate and figure out who is right. I am very familiar with the Bible having grown up with a babtist minister father, I even went to Bob Jones U. I have heard the creationist arguments for years, my high school piano teacher's husband is Kent Hovind. I recently stumbled on some apparant contridictions in Genesis and since no one I have asked can give me a plausible answer I am very confused and scared. Like I mentioned the Bible I know, science I do not. In all honesty the evolutionists are winning the debate in my mind which is why I'm scared. It would take way to much time to list everything I am confused about here but a couple of things;why is the creation account in Genesis 1 contradicted in chapter 2 about the order of creation for man and the animals? For the evolutionists; how do you explain the various fossils from different time eras all in one place and along the same lines why are there fossils lying across different strata(?) levels in the earth? Isn't that impossible? Please forgive my obvious ignorance as I am sure my termonology is wrong. I would appreciate any help that could be offered.

Technically, Genesis can be consistent with evolutionary theory. Just for the heck of it, I re-constructed Genesis 1 and 2 without inflicting too much harm on the Hebrew words in which they were written. You can read that Genesis reconstruction here.

[jellis419]

Thank you for your posts. I have alot to think about. Considering that I come from a background of literal interpretation of the Bible this is not going to be an easy road for me. I do not feel free to discuss this with my family as they will see my questions as the road to h*ll. Once again I'm sorry if my post has diverted the topic of this thread to something it wasn't intended to be but combine my lack of knowledge of the computer with my lack of scientific knowledge I figured "selfishly" that this was my best bet to get some answers. Once again thank you.

[harvey1]

Thank you for your posts. I have alot to think about. Considering that I come from a background of literal interpretation of the Bible this is not going to be an easy road for me. I do not feel free to discuss this with my family as they will see my questions as the road to h*ll. Once again I'm sorry if my post has diverted the topic of this thread to something it wasn't intended to be but combine my lack of knowledge of the computer with my lack of scientific knowledge I figured "selfishly" that this was my best bet to get some answers. Once again thank you.

Well, my advice is that you do whatever you feel you need to do to be a happy person. Give yourself higher priority than anything else. However, you wouldn't be hurt if you attended congregations where they don't hold to a literal interpretation of the scriptures. I myself enjoy the contemporary services where the "old timers" are missing altogether.