This page is an introductory overview.
Most of it was originally in The
Origin of Life:
3. Closed Science and Open Science
4. What is a theory of Intelligent Design?
5. Can a theory of intelligent design be scientific?
6. Origin of Life? The Science of Chemical Evolution
7. Can design be proved? What about future science?
8. Scientific Evaluation plus Philosophical Interpretation
Appendix: complexity csi 100% no-yes abilities stardust virtues
Some sections (3, 4, 6, 7) are condensed — they
contain
excerpts from the original
page, to
quickly
show
you the main ideas — while others (5, 8) are more complete. Two related
pages, with "the rest of the
excerpts," are Four Types
of Intelligent Design and Methodological
Naturalism:
Science, Philosophy, and Theology.
3. Closed
Science and Open Science
Currently, most scientific
inquiry is closed by methodological naturalism (MN),
a proposal to restrict the freedom of scientists by requiring that they
include only natural causes in their scientific theories. In a closed
science (restricted by MN), evidence and logic are not the determining
factors because the inevitable conclusion — no matter what is being
studied, or what is the evidence — must be that "it happened
by natural process."
Is MN the best way to do
science? Maybe not. It depends on what actually happened
in history. ..... [much of the original section
has been omitted]
If we don't know whether history
has been all-natural, our best scientific strategy for finding truth is an open
science, with scientists humbly asking a question instead of
arrogantly assuming an answer.
In open science a scientist
begins with MN by assuming that "it happened by natural process." But
an open-thinking scientist is free to use both MN and non-MN modes of
thinking while logically evaluating the evidence, to consider a wider
range of possibilities. A scientist begins with an MN-assumption,
but does not insist that — no matter what the evidence indicates — it
is necessary to end with an MN-conclusion. An
open scientist adopts testable-MN instead
of rigid-MN, because the assumption
of MN is treated as an assumption, as a theory to be tested rather than
a conclusion to be accepted. There is flexible open-minded inquiry,
with freedom of thought for the individual and community, and scientists
are free to follow the evidence-and-logic wherever it leads. Each
theory is evaluated based on its merit, and if a non-MN conclusion is
justified by the evidence, this is allowed. ..... By
contrast,
The
Conclusions of MN-Science — that no matter what is being
studied, or what is the evidence, it happened by natural process — are
actually The Assumption of MN. The circular logic of MN,
which converts a naturalistic assumption into a naturalistic conclusion,
is illogical (because circular logic is bad logic) yet is unavoidable,
and it requires no science. But instead of acknowledging this
logical weakness of MN-Science, usually MN-Humility is ignored and
there is an implication that the assumption made
by MN (that it happened by natural process) is
a conclusion reached by science, and is therefore true. MN
provides a way to bypass the process of science and then claim
the authority of science as support.
MN is examined more thoroughly in a page about Methodological
Naturalism that contains all of Section 3, plus excerpts from
three other pages.
4. What
is a theory of intelligent design?
If you receive a radio signal — 2,
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — and you think "this long string
of prime numbers was probably not produced by undirected natural process," you are proposing a theory of Intelligent
Design.
< snip: part of the full section — which
you can read in Four
Types of Intelligent Design — is omitted here >
All theories of divine creation propose intelligent
design, but usually a "Design theory" has a narrower definition,
as explained in the conclusion of the full section:
When
you're reading the rest of this section, you may wonder "why
is he making it so complicated by distinguishing between four types of
design, and between Design (specific with a narrow definition) and design
(general with a broad definition)?" My answer is that these
distinctions are important and are necessary, because without them our
thinking can be illogical and our communicating can be confused. Einstein
said "we should make things as simple as possible,
but no simpler," and making it "as
simple as possible" requires these distinctions. If
you read carefully while thinking, you'll see that this system of terms
(with four types of design, which include two types of Design)
is necessary and it does make sense; this system will be useful
because it will improve our thinking and communicating, helping us think
more logically and communicate more clearly.
Design (specific,
narrowly defined) and design (general, broadly defined)
For improved precision, I'll use words that are Capitalized and regular to
distinguish between Intelligent Design (defined
narrowly) and intelligent design (defined broadly).
In this page, and in most other contexts,
a Design theory is a claim that a feature
was produced by empirically detectable Design-directed
action during history (by Dn-or-Ds, with Design-action by
a natural agent or supernatural agent) rather than Ni (design of nature, which
is not during history), Ns (design-directed
guidance of natural process, which is not empirically
detectable), or Nu (which is not by design-directed
action).
My definition of design is
broader; it includes Ds-or-Dn (Design) and also Ni and Ns (which are
not Design but are design). Therefore, of the five
possibilities — Natural-initial design (Ni), Natural-supernatural
design (Ns), Detectable-supernatural Design
(Ds), Detectable-natural Design (Dn),
and Natural-undesigned (Nu) — four are
design and only one (Nu) is non-design.
The table below shows the four
types of design (in the three columns with a white YES)
and the three questions that
are used to define design (Does the
production of a feature involve design-directed action?)
and Design (Does the Design-action occur
during history and is it empirically
detectable?).
Dn.
Design-action by natural agent
Ds. Design-action by supernatural agent
Ni. design of natural process
Ns. guiding-action for natural process
Nu. natural process that is undesigned
and (in history) is unguided/undirected
|
design and Design
defined in terms of
three questions
|
design
|
|
Design
|
non-Design
|
Dn or Ds
|
Ns
|
Ni
|
Nu
|
design-directed
action?
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
no
|
occurs
during history?
|
YES
|
YES
|
no
|
—
|
empirically
detectable?
|
YES
|
no
|
?
|
—
|
|
testing
for Design and design: Using my definitions, a feature was produced
by either Design (Dn-or-Ds) or non-Design (Ni,
Ns, or Nu), so Design and non-Design are mutually
exclusive, and evidence for one is evidence against the
other. But
design includes Design and more, so evidence against Design (during
history and detectable, Dn-or-Ds) is not evidence against the
other two types of design, by design
before history (Ni) or undetectable
design-action (Ns).
note: This system
of terms — distinguishing between Design (specific, narrowly defined)
and design (general, broadly defined) — is my own system. Other
authors have not used it in the past, and probably most will not use
it in the
future,
although
I hope the ideas in it will be considered and
accepted. The full page about "four types of design" uses the
system's two terms consistently, but in this page (and in almost all other pages
you'll be reading, by me and
by other authors) "design" can
refer
to
either Design or design, and you'll have to think about the context
and decide the
intended
meaning.
5. Can
a theory of intelligent design be scientific?
Design
is Testable in Science
Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? When
we use the definitions above, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it
was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly
improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design
(against production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for
design. And vice versa. { the logic of
mutual exclusion and questions about defining
design-action } The evaluative status of non-design
(and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence,
so a theory of design is empirically responsive and
is testable. Based on a logical evaluation
of evidence, we can conclude that a design theory is probably
true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is probably
false (if any non-design theory seems highly plausible). { But
can design be proved? What about future developments in science? }
Observable
Signs of Design
How do scientists detect
design? By using eliminative logic, as explained above. This
logic can also be described in terms of the characteristics (including complex
specified information) that typically are produced by design-directed
action, but not by undirected natural process. Scientists have
developed, and are continuing to develop, ways to recognize these signs
of design, which seem to occur only when a design-idea has been
actualized by design-action.
If we observe strong signs
of design — such as a long string of prime numbers, or circumstantial
evidence for a murder — we can infer that design-directed action
did occur, even if the agent and action were not observed. Scientists
can infer the existence of an unobservable cause (an
electron, a thought, a volcano acting in the past, a person acting in
the past,...) from the observable effects it
produces, in studies of current events or historical events, with or
without agent-action.
Can historical
science be scientific?
The scientific methods used
in a design investigation are also used in historical sciences like geology,
archaeology, evolutionary biology, and astronomy. Many arguments
against design are also arguments against every historical science. But
scientists have developed methods for coping with the limitations of
historical data, and historical science can be authentically scientific. The
same principles of scientific logic are used in both operations
science (to study the current operation of nature, what is happening
now) and historical science (to study the
previous operation of nature, what happened in the past). { Historical
Science — Do evolution and design use scientific method? }
A historical theory can include
proposals for agent-action in history. In some historical situations,
only undirected natural process was involved, so a mechanistic
explanatory theory (which usually is related to mechanistic theories
in operations science) is adequate. In other historical situations,
what happened was affected by the decisions and actions of an agent. This
introduces an element of unpredictability when making predictions, but
this is acceptable because in a descriptive theory a
historical scientist (in anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology,
psychology, or forensics; or in geology, biology, paleontology, or astronomy)
only has to determine what did occur, not predict what will occur. And
in an agency explanatory theory, proposing
that "agent action was involved" is part of the scientific
explanation.
Details
about Design (are not necessary)
For any question about design, in any area (radioastronomy,
homicide, origins,...), we can view the scientific inquiry as a two-stage process: first
we ask "Was there design-directed action?", and then we investigate
the details. A basic design theory claims
only that design-directed action did occur (the first stage) but does not try
to explain the details (who, why, how,...) of design-and-production.
Of course, we should evaluate a
design theory based on what it does claim (that design occurred) instead of
what it does not claim (that it can explain the details). { An
objection claiming that a basic design theory is not sufficient. }
Design
is Common in Science
In science, theories of design
are common. In every design investigation, scientists ask the same
question: If we assume a uniformity of natural
process, was undirected natural process sufficient to produce
what we observe? Sometimes the answer is "probably not," and
design-action is proposed to explain a wide variety of features such
as bird nests, ant hills, predator-prey events, paintings on a cave wall,
metal satellites in orbit, and faces on Mount Rushmore. A design
theory is proposed — for example, when a crime detective concludes
that "this death occurred by murder, not natural causes" — when
an inference that "design-directed action did occur" can be
justified based on a logical evaluation of evidence.
Design is common in science,
and most design theories (but not all) are judged on their scientific
merit. Why is there a difference? The main reason, as explained
in Four Types of Design (and why one type is controversial),
is that "concerns about design occur when
design-action seems unfamiliar... and it could be supernatural. In
these situations the main concerns are religious, and a common claim
is that a design theory is a creation theory." But
even though "the main concerns are religious" there
are also logical reasons for caution when we ask "what are the goals
of science, and what methods should be used to pursue these goals?" These
questions — about goals and methods — deserve more attention,
and I will discuss them in more detail later. Currently, the
appendix includes more about methods for detecting design by
using the logic of mutual exclusion, along with interesting questions
(about divine guidance, intelligence & detection, goals & abilities)
and some useful ways to think about these questions.
What
difference will it make?
Although design might significantly
affect philosophy of science, probably it
will have little impact on the overall productivity
of science, because most areas of science are not affected by
controversial claims for design. But in several historical areas — including
origins of the universe, first life, and complex life — scientific
analysis shows that design deserves to be accepted, not as the only possible
explanation, but as a potentially plausible explanation that is worthy
of serious consideration and further development. The potential
of design theories to make valuable scientific contributions should be
recognized and welcomed.
Will
it be scientifically productive? (
Is it a science-stopper? )
Perhaps the search by Closed Science (restricted
by a rigid methodological naturalism) is occasionally
futile, like trying to explain how the faces on Mt Rushmore were produced by
undirected natural processes such as erosion. If scientists are restricted
by an assumption that is wrong (that does not correspond with historical reality)
the finest creativity and logic will fail to find the true origin of the faces.
Occasionally, perhaps MN is forcing
scientists into a futile search, like a man who is diligently looking for missing
keys in the kitchen when the keys are sitting on a table on the front porch. No
matter how hard he searches the kitchen, he won't find the keys because they
aren't there! On the other hand, if the keys really are in the kitchen,
they probably will be found by someone who believes "the keys are in the
kitchen" and is diligently searching there, not by a skeptic.
Perseverance and Flexibility: How
is scientific productivity affected by attitude? In the complex blend
that generates productive thinking, "There can be
a tension between contrasting virtues, such as persevering by tenacious hard
work, or flexibly deciding to explore new theories that may be more productive
in a search for truth. A problem solver may need to dig deeper, so perseverance
is needed; but sometimes the key to a solution is to dig in a new location,
and flexibility will pay off." {from Productive
Thinking: Creative and Critical }
If you get stuck while trying to
solve a problem, you must decide
whether to continue in the direction you're going or change course.
|
Sometimes
PERSEVERANCE
is needed, and you should
DIG DEEPER:
|
|
But sometimes
FLEXIBILITY
is needed, so you should
DIG ELSEWHERE:
|
|
|
|
Should scientists dig deeper
in the same location, or dig in a new location? Should they
search the kitchen or porch? The answer is YES if we notice
that one word is wrong, if we replace "or" with "and" because
we refuse to remain trapped in narrow thinking. Instead of thinking
that we must make an either-or choice, we should search both kitchen
and porch, we should dig deeper and in new locations, as suggested in
open science. We can adopt a humble attitude "by
refusing to decide that we already know with certainty... what kind of
world we live in." { more about the
paradoxical virtues of flexibility and perseverance }
One night you find a man searching
under a streetlight. You ask why, and he says "I'm looking for
my keys." You ask, "Did they fall out of your pocket?" "Yes,
I was riding my bike when I heard them hit the ground about a half-block
up the street." "Then why are you searching here?" "It's
easier to search here because there is more light." / Why
is this a joke? Is he behaving rationally? Will he find the lost
keys?
But if scientists accept
a theory that "a designer did it," what else is there to do? Therefore,
isn't a claim for design a science-stopper?
No, this simplistic "slippery
slope" argument is hindered by the inflexibility of narrow either-or
thinking. It is unrealistic because when most scientists hear a claim
that "maybe a non-design explanation doesn't exist" they will
continue their non-design research, probably with renewed vigor because
they are responding to a challenge.
Currently, some scientists
think "design-directed action" is the best explanation for
some features, such as the origins of the first life or of some biocomplexities. Other
scientists don't "accept" design, but they think that, for
some features, a theory of design-action should be seriously considered. But
currently most biologists (including those who are open-minded about
design, and those who aren't) still think non-design is the best explanation
for all features, and they certainly expect non-design research to be
more scientifically productive for generating useful information and
for explaining a wide variety of features in organisms and in their historical
development.
I agree. Compared with
design theories, I think non-design theories (especially the modern synthesis
of neo-Darwinism) will continue to be much more scientifically fruitful
in stimulating research that will help us learn more about the history
of biological development on earth. But even though this research
activity is stimulated by non-design, it could either increase or decrease
the status of non-design theories, as explained in Section
7. But design theories could also
be useful in stimulating scientific research and thinking (this
is discussed in DESIGN
IN SCIENCE), especially when the perspectives
of design and non-design are used together in a flexible combination.
Proponents
of design want non-design research to continue so we can learn more, so
we can more accurately evaluate the merits of non-design and design, because
the goal is to find truth. They want to supplement non-design
research, not replace it. They want to stimulate productive action
and critical thinking, with invigorating debates between critics of a
theory and its loyal defenders. This type of scientific stimulation
did occur (and is occurring) due to Michael Behe's claims for "irreducible
complexity" in 1996, even though (as explained in Mike
Behe's Adventures with Science Journals) the current scientific community
does not want to acknowledge or encourage this scientific stimulation.
The main part of this page ends by looking at
current science (6), future science (7), and philosophical evaluations
(8).
6.
The Science of Chemical Evolution (Part 2)
In the full-legth
page, this section explains why "scientists
are learning that the complexity required for life (in terms of biomolecule
formation and self-organization) seems to be much greater than the complexity
available by natural process (beginning with lifeless matter). This
huge difference has motivated scientists to creatively construct new theories
for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities, but none of these ideas
has progressed from speculation to plausibility. ....." {more
about origin-of-life science}
It also
describes the concepts of irreducible complexity (developed
by Michael Behe) and "the minimal
complexity that would be required for reproduction and other essential
life-functions" in the first living organism. {two
complexities of life}
7. Can
design be proved? (excerpts)
As explained in Section
5, a design theory is "empirically responsive
and testable" because "design
and non-design are mutually exclusive." But
a design theory does not claim non-design is impossible and design
is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable based
on scientific evidence and logic. {one reason we
cannot be certain} This type of probability-based conclusion
is consistent with the logic of science in which proof is
always impossible, even though scientists can develop a logically
justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. ...
All current theories for a
natural origin of carbon-based life seem implausible. Is it rational
for scientists to consider the possibility that life on earth did not originate
by undirected natural process, but was the result of design-directed action? The
certainty of "proof" is impossible because we can never propose
and test all possibilities for non-design. But we could develop a
logically justified confidence that our search has been thorough yet futile,
and no promising approaches remain unexplored. ...
What
might happen in the future of science?
Even though advocates of
non-design imply that future science will support their claims, the
change in support could go either way, up or down. Will non-design
seem more plausible because we have discovered how a feature could
have been produced by undirected natural process? Or will it
seem less plausible because we have learned more about the limits of
natural process? Either of these results could occur. In
fact, both changes have occurred in the history of research about chemical
evolution. ... Compared with fifty years ago, now we know more
about the origin of life, and what we've learned has made a natural
origin of life seem less plausible. ...
In the future, what will happen in science, and how will
this affect the status of non-design and design? When thinking about this,
we can use our imaginations to predict improvements in
current theories and inventions of new theories. And
we can use current knowledge to guide our questions. Most of the skepticism
about current theories of chemical evolution is based on what we know, and this
knowledge can help us ask specific questions. We can look at each obstacle
to a natural origin of life — such as the unfavorable chemical reactions
needed for making biomolecules, the high degree of biocomplexity needed for metabolism
and reproduction,... — and try to imagine ways in which future knowledge
might change our views about each obstacle. We can ask, "How likely
is each change?" and "How would it affect our evaluations for a natural
origin of life?" {an alchemical example, comparing
1600 and 2000}
To make good predictions about
future scientific developments, we need creativity (to imagine what could be)
plus criticality (to make realistic predictions about what is probable in reality,
not just possible in our imaginations) so we can avoid the extremes of insisting
that in this area of science "nothing new will happen" or "anything
could happen." ... { This section has
been condensed, as indicated by the ...'s, to 1/3 of its original length. }
a useful concept: As
in other models of science, my model of Integrated
Scientific Method uses a continuum of theory
status ranging from very low to very high, to describe our degree
of confidence in a theory. This concept encourages flexible thinking,
by not limiting us to the dichotomous alternatives of accepting or rejecting
a theory. These binary categories are still available — because
if status rises above a certain level we can "accept" a theory,
and if it falls too low we can choose to "reject" — but
a binary choice (either yes or no) is not forced on us prematurely due
to rigid concepts that have limited the options we are capable of imagining
and considering.
8. Scientific
Evaluation and Philosophical Interpretation
In the full version of
Section 7, I ask you to "imagine a scientific
community with trillions of super-intelligent space aliens [with long
lifespans and technology for exploring throughout the universe]...
who [after billions of years of their super-science] have not yet constructed
a plausible theory for a natural origin of life." And
I ask a question: "Even in this situation
a denial of design would be possible, but would it be rational?"
This difficult question does
not have an easy answer for us, because 1) in the near future,
the actual state of human knowledge will remain much less advanced than
in the super-science of this imaginary scenario, and 2) a
design theory, and any other theory, can be rationally evaluated in two
ways, using science and philosophy:
• Scientific Evaluation
of a theory: First, we use evidence-and-logic to evaluate each
current non-design theory for plausibility, and we use creativity (to imagine
what could be) plus criticality (to make realistic predictions about what
is probable in reality, not just possible in our imaginations) in an effort
to predict improvements in current theories and inventions
of new theories.
• Philosophical Evaluation
of a theory: Second, based on a wide range of scientific and
nonscientific criteria (including worldviews) we think about the possibilities
for how a feature was produced: 1w (a natural event of low probability,
which did occur even though it is scientifically implausible), 1w* (if
events with apparently low probability are actually highly probable because
there is an immense number of universes), 1x (a current naturalistic theory
is approximately true), 1y (a future naturalistic theory will be approximately
true), 1z (a naturalistic theory is true, but we will never propose and
accept it), 2A (natural design and construction), or 2B (supernatural design
and creation). All of these are logically possible,
but — based on our interpretations (which are based on scientific
and nonscientific logic, plus personal experience and values) — do
we think they are equally probable? {note:
These seven possibilities are explained more thoroughly in Section 7 of The
Origin of Life: A Test-Case for Naturalism? }
A major challenge in evaluating
design is uncertainty about the adequacy of our current science. Although
design (2A or 2B) and non-design (1w, 1w*, 1x, 1y, or 1z) are mutually exclusive,
our estimates for the status of non-design (with five possibilities!) are
uncertain. Advocates of non-design and design disagree about the status
for current non-design theories (1x), but their disagreement increases when
trying to evaluate the other four possibilities for non-design, which include
highly improbable events (1w, 1w*) and deficiencies in current science (1y,
1z).
During our evaluations, we should
recognize that proof is always impossible in science. An important
aspect of philosophical interpretation is deciding
what to conclude (or whether to conclude) when a logical scientific evaluation,
based on currently available evidence, is not conclusive.* If
a design theory claims only to be "more probable" or to warrant "a
high level of confidence," this is the standard by which it should be
judged. It seems unreasonable for critics of design to demand — along
with radical postmodern critics who challenge the credibility of all science — that
if scientists cannot claim the certainty of proof, they can claim nothing. We
should want to be appropriately humble by avoiding
the extremes of arrogant overconfidence (in claiming too much) or timidly
overcautious relativism (in claiming too little) and not descending into
aggressive postmodern skepticism about the futility of logic and the illusion
of reliable conclusions.
* In
baseball, most umpires have decided to use the arbitrary guideline that "a
tie goes to the runner." In U.S. courtrooms, the usual rule
of "assumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a shadow of doubt" is
based on a non-arbitrary principle of freedom. In science, sometimes
there is a strong guideline (an "unwritten rule" that is understood
by all) based on a principle of protecting the currently reigning paradigm
against all challengers. {defending
a paradigm} / an application: When
we're comparing theories of design and non-design, does design (the challenger)
have "the burden of proof" and does non-design (the paradigm,
the reigning champion) get "the benefit of the doubt"? (but
how much proof is required, how much doubt is allowed?)
In the few areas where design
is challenging the status quo, an attitude of "defending our champion
against the challenger" may be the way it is now, but is this the
most rational way to search for truth? In baseball, a quick decision
is required so the game can continue. But in science, instead of "declaring
a winner" can we just say "we're not sure at this time" and
continue searching, with this humble open-minded attitude, in our efforts
to learn more?
It seems rational to adopt different
levels of status for different claims about design. Instead of deciding
that a binary choice (either YES or NO) is necessary, we can decide that different
types of claims for the origin of a particular feature — ranging from
bold to humble, claiming that design is almost certain, is highly probable,
is more than 50% probable (so design is an "inference to the best explanation"),
is moderately probable, or is plausible enough to be seriously considered as
a possibility — should be judged to have progressively increasing levels
of scientific status.
Should we ask the question?
Design cannot be proved, but
in science the goal is logically justified confidence and a high degree
of plausibility, not certainty. When we ask, "Was design-action
involved in producing this feature?", it will be impossible to answer
with certainty. But it should be easy to decide, "Should
we ask the question?" A curious, open-minded community
will say "YES, we want our science to be flexible and open
to inquiry."
Section 8 was motivated by a similar suggestion
for "science plus interpretation" by Loren Haarsma in Science
and Miracles.
Appropriate humility also seems justifiable in theologies. For
example, all Judeo-Christian theists believe that God intelligently designed
the universe, but I think there is not a compelling theological reason
to believe that God did (or didn't) design the universe to be totally
self-assembling by natural process, so theists can be appropriately humble
about God's method of creation, and we can look at the scientific evidence-and-logic
with an open mind. (*) We can
be humble while we explain — using arguments based on theology
and science, based on our interpretations of scripture and nature — why
we think one view is more plausible than other views. {
The ideas in this paragraph are condensed from the conclusion of "Why
is it controversial?" in Four
Types of Design. } * Can
atheists look with an open mind?