Although I've been vaguely interested in the furor over the Kansas School Board decision and the litigation in Pennsylvania, I didn't really have the time to investigate further the merits of the dispute. Well, Black Friday morning seemed like a good time, so I fired up good old Google and punched in
"intelligent design." Several hours later, my head hurts.
So obviously I'm a Christian theist (if you couldn't tell). But I've long adopted Galileo's maxim, that "the Scriptures teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (anyone know how to Bluebook that cite? I couldn't find the reference for quotes by old dead people.) Intelligent Design (I.D.) argues that the strict dichotomy between a designer or other cause outside the natural system and the natural system itself (the province of science) is a false one, and that the natural system cannot adequately perform its avowed task of explaining the world around us without recourse to a designer.
Empirical science, of course, rejects such a claim. It rejects it by first pointing out that the supposed weakness of empirical science is really its strength: when our existing theories and scientific knowledge lack explicatory power, scientists go back to the drawing board (well, the lab really) and adjust their assumptions and theories until they come up with a better theory. Think of Newtonian physics and how we eventually pushed up against their limits until Einstein came along. Think of how, at the sharpest cutting edge of physics, we're starting to wonder if Al got everything right (actually I think they're pretty sure he didn't, but I don't want to spend Saturday morning researching that).
Secondly it rejects I.D. by pointing out that what it proposes is not science. Philosophers of science have a list of criteria with which to judge whether a proposed theory is scientific or not (lawyers have
Daubert and the FRE). I.D. fails quite a few of those criteria, and thus is rejected by the general scientific community. And I have to say, the scientific community gets it quite right here. By the standard definition of science, I.D. really isn't science. The crux of I.D. is that it points out where evolution fails to adequately account for certain phenomena, and by eliminating chance and necessity, argues that the only viable alternative apart from ignorance, is to posit the work of a designer. But this is not scientific. It may be valid criticism, but it is not scientific criticism unless it can produce some kind of positive evidence (oh good heavens, I'm having flashbacks of last week's Evidence lectures). Of course, some would argue that it isn't valid criticism unless it's scientific, and therefore it isn't valid criticism either.
I could keep boring you with the arguments and counter-arguments, but let's face it: I'm no genius, but if I had a hard time keeping up with all the rhetoric and argument (and there's a fair bit of both, pejorative and otherwise), the general American public isn't going to make it out of the gate. I think the real debate should not be about whether I.D. is good science (by definition, it's not). The real issues occur on a higher level, namely, what is good epistemology: what are good ways of determining truth and knowledge? Ever since the Moderns, empiricism has come to dominate (good old Hume), especially through science. And I'll admit, it's paid off handsomely. Without science, life would distinctively be a lot crappier than it is today (*Gasp!* No Internet!!!). I.D. is not scientific because it challenges empiricism, arguing that the empirical evidence indicates that there is something or someone out there, but for which we (at this point) cannot produce positive empirical evidence. As such, I believe it is not a scientific challenge, but an epistemological one.
And proponents of I.D. are smart about it - since it's not science, don't take it to the scientific community, especially in its initial stages. Take it to the people. You can hardly blame them. If I.D.'s conclusions are right, they are inimical to the scientific system that we have today. You can liken the reaction to I.D. to the initial reaction to Galileo and Copernicus, with their proposals of a radically different cosmology (proponents of I.D. should feel comforted by the fact that they don't live in an intolerant society that beheads heretics). Whenever our belief systems are challenged, our first tendency is to feel shock and outrage, and to want to respond with equal and opposite force (or just trample the challenger). Especially when these belief systems are near and dear to our hearts; for many scientists, empirical science is their religion.
I'm ultimately quite blase about what's going on though. Let them teach I.D. in schools, as long as they teach evolution too. Because I still believe that in the end, the truth will get out. You can't suppress inaccurate knowledge forever, especially when it comes to "science" (I refer broadly now to how the world works and a general curiosity about the natural world around us, not to any specific method). If I.D. is flawed in its attempt to challenge the established scientific order, it will fail and perish, and be remembered as just another silly attempt by some silly people. If I.D. proves right and there are certain puzzles that evolution cannot solve, one day the scientific community will be forced to admit it. There is already one such puzzle that honest scientists will admit lies beyond science, and that is the question of ultimate origin and "why."
Alright. This post has been way too long, if you've actually read everything, thank you. I'll buy you a drink the next time I see you. But for now I need to go figure out how to make hearsay exceptions dance at my beck and call.
