[extropy-chat] Intelligent Design -- take *this*...

[gts]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:06 -0500, Robert Bradbury  
<robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Going back to my previous comments in this area -- I stand by my  
> statements that I.D. is worthy of scientific discussion

Here is my own take on the subject. Thanks to those here who helped me  
formulate my thoughts. Comments and criticisms still welcome.

=====
Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and Public Science Education

The Intelligent Design (ID) movement uses a two-pronged attack in the  
effort to discredit Darwinism. First, ID proponents posit the existence of  
irreducibly complex structures in biology, structures such as the  
bacterial flagellum, which they contend cannot have evolved naturally and  
so must represent evidence of an intelligent designer. Second, they argue  
that conventional science in general amounts to a form of religion, a  
religion they call "methodological naturalism," and that this naturalistic  
bias prevents science from considering unnatural or supernatural  
explanations of natural phenomena.

The first charge is dismissed easily enough, and won't be covered here.  
The second charge seems a more serious threat to science education in  
public schools. If ID proponents can convince legislators and school  
administrators that science is inherently biased and grounded in something  
akin to religious faith then other religious ideas might be given equal  
time in public school science classrooms. Or evolution science or any  
other branch science could become vulnerable to attack as a violation of  
the separation of church and state.

This debate seems therefore to be not only about evolution. At stake is  
the definition of science in education.

In Kansas, proponents of Intelligent Design have already argued along such  
lines and succeeded in redefining science for purposes of public education.

Whereas science in Kansas once meant:

"seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us"

It now means:

"continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing,  
measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead  
to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Kansas' new definition seems on the surface very reasonable, perhaps even  
an improvement, but it lacks the requirement that science be about natural  
explanations. In Kansas, any explanation for natural phenomena now  
qualifies as science, including for example astrology as an explanation of  
human destiny and personality. Perhaps lightening is evidence of angry  
gods, and perhaps frogs cause warts. Obviously this view of science is  
unacceptable.

We need then either to 1) define what we mean by "natural explanations"  
and advance stronger arguments for limiting science to natural  
explanations, or 2) recommend a better definition of science not limited  
to natural explanations but which still precludes explanations of natural  
phenomena that intelligent people would consider magical or superstitious.  
The first option seems most logical, but I see a difficulty in the  
distinction between “natural” and “supernatural.” Presumably everything  
real in the universe is in the final analysis natural, including the hand  
of any supposed Intelligent Designer.
I’ll argue here for the second option.

What do ID proponents mean when they claim science is like religion for  
reason of its basis in methodological naturalism? As far as I can tell,  
they mean that the conventional view of science is based in  
justificationism, positivism and inductivism. This is in fact a common  
view of science. Positivism is the once commonly held empiricist doctrine,  
advanced by the Vienna Circle, that meaningful propositions in science are  
confined to those which can in principle be verified or justified through  
empirical observation.

If science finds its meaning in justificationism/positivism then I think  
ID proponents would have a point: science might then be considered a form  
of religion. This is so because the positivist proposition, that  
propositions are valid only if they can in principle be verified  
empirically, cannot itself be verified empirically. Positivism fails its  
own test for meaning and must by the positivist's own standards be a  
meaningless proposition or a statement of metaphysics or religion.  
Positivism and its close cousin justificationism can in that sense be  
considered religion.

Hume's thorough refutation of inductivism renders it too a form of  
religion.  We have no justification for believing past observations  
predict future observations. That the sun has risen each morning is not  
proof that it will rise again tomorrow. Strictly speaking, such  
predictions are irrational statements of faith.

I do not know how to define methodological naturalism except as a  
materialistic philosophy of science based in justificationism, positivism  
and inductivism.

Fortunately these 'religions' are not essential to science. Karl Popper's  
philosophy of falsificationism and critical rationalism are I think a  
superior philosophy of science, better than justificationism and  
positivism, and one that does not depend on anything resembling religion.  
Popper explicitly rejected positivism and justificationism and  
acknowledges Hume's criticism of inductivism.

Perhaps not coincidently, Popper's evolutionary epistemology is an  
extension of biological evolution into the world of science and ideas.  
Although Popper was a realist who subscribed to the correspondence theory  
of truth, science was not to him about finding "justified true beliefs."  
Popper viewed science as a biological enterprise, a means through which  
humans use intelligence to adapt to the environment. Successful scientific  
theories have value then not because they are deemed true, but because  
they are workable conjectures that provide solutions to real problems of  
human survival.

In this view scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings are  
in no way sacred, leaving ID proponents with no sacred cows to target. In  
fact the proper goal of science is to falsify its own propositions.  
Unfalsifiable theories are rejected as non-science.

All knowledge is considered conjectural. Science is then the business of  
falsifying our conjectures, of sacrificing our theories to save our skins.

"On the pre-scientific level, we are often ourselves destroyed, eliminated  
with our false theories; we perish with our false theories. On the  
scientific level, we systematically try to eliminate our false theories --  
we try to let our false theories die in our stead."

-Karl Popper

A better definition of science might then be "a continuing investigation  
using empirical measurement and logical argument to build falsifiable  
theories about the world, theories which science then attempts to falsify  
through rigorous hypothesis testing, for the purpose of finding effective  
solutions to current and future problems of human progress and survival."

Does Intelligent Design then qualify as science? ID is arguably  
unfalsifiable and thus not a valid theory. And if it is falsifiable then  
it seems already to have been falsified: evolution scientists have offered  
coherent naturalistic explanations for many so-called irreducibly complex  
structures. Moreover even if we give ID the benefit of the doubt here, and  
grant it status as a valid and as yet not falsified theory, the theory  
seems still to fail our test for science in that it has no problem solving  
value. The theory that snowflakes are created by angels has as much  
problem-solving value to humanity as does ID. It would seem then that even  
a generous appraisal leaves ID looking like nothing more than ordinary  
mythology.

-gts