Why
is it controversial? (Intelligent Design is not Creationism)
Theories of design can be evaluated using the logical
methods of science, and are common in science. Most design theories are
judged on their scientific merit, but some people claim that some design theories
are "not scientific" and should therefore be excluded from
science. Why?
Concerns about design occur when
design-action
seems unfamiliar. In some situations the action and agent are familiar
(as when a beaver builds a dam, or humans make faces on Mount Rushmore) but in
other cases the design-action is unfamiliar and it could be either natural (for
example, if space aliens produced designed features by using their unfamiliar
advanced technologies)
or
supernatural
(as
in Biblical
miracles). For most opponents of design, questions occur when design-action
is 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. Is this claim justified?
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).
In origins, a design theory is
not a
creation theory. A basic design theory can be supplemented with details
(about the designer's identity and actions, about who, why, how,...) to form
a variety of theories about supernatural creation (by
God or...) or natural non-creation (as in a theory
proposing that evolution on earth was intelligently designed and directed by
space aliens who evolved before us). A design theory — which does
not propose divine action, but does acknowledge it as a possibility — does
not try to distinguish between creation and non-creation. Instead, a design
theory just claims that "design-directed action did occur."
A basic (non-supplemented) design
theory is limited to claims that can be scientifically evaluated. In a Response
to Critics, Michael Behe explains: "Most people (including
myself) will attribute the design to God, based in part on other, non-scientific
judgments they have made. ... From a scientific point of view, the question [who
is the designer?] remains open. ... The biochemical evidence strongly indicates
design, but does not show who the designer was." As a person, Behe
says "I think the designer was God." But as a scientist, he says "the
evidence doesn't show who the designer was."
analogy and consistency (in design
and non-design)
analogy: We can
view a naturalistic theory of non-design (such as chemical evolution or neo-Darwinian
biological evolution) as being mainly religious — because
it supports deism or theism (if a clever design of nature seems to be necessary
for it to happen) or atheism (if it seems to make God unnecessary) — or
as mainly scientific even though it can have
some religious implications. Similarly, we can view a design theory
as being mainly religious or mainly
scientific. In open-minded science, a scientist uses evidence
and logic to evaluate "mere science" theories (such as mere
evolution or mere design) that are considered,
during a process of objective evaluation, to be mainly scientific with minimal
religious implications.
consistency: Supporters
of non-design and design should ask themselves, "Are we being objective
and logically consistent when we're describing our theory and their theory,
or are we trying to make ourselves look more scientifically rational by
claiming that our own theory is mainly scientific, and their theory is
mainly religious?"
This section is a
brief
sociological analysis of relationships between design and nondesign
in communities of scientists and in American society, including
connections between
intelligent design (ID) and young-earth
creationism (YEC), especially in
education. This contrasts with the logical analysis above, in
which I ask "Why is it controversial?" and explain why intelligent
design is not creationism. / note: Currently
an IOU is justified because this section is not fully developed yet, so
I'll skip the details and go directly to some conclusions.
an overall conclusion: Basically,
I think any connections between ID and YEC should be considered
(but should not be determinative) in education, but are mostly irrelevant
in science.
Later, this section will include
ideas about: the "big
tent" strategy of Phillip Johnson and other ID leaders, and thus
the potential for YEC theories to be uninvited hitchhikers taking advantage
of a "free ride" from design theories that are more logically
and scientifically credible, and are less constitutionally questionable
in public education; most prominent ID leaders think the earth
and universe are billions of years old, but (according to Del Ratzsch,
whose
description seems correct) "although also
not part of 'official' IDM doctrine, some among academic ID advocates,
and
the overwhelming bulk of lay ID advocates, accept a 'young-earth' version
of creationism," and this is important in a sociological
analysis; I
think basic design theories are worthy of serious consideration in
science and education, but young-earth and young-universe theories
already have
been seriously considered and (for all practical purposes) have been
scientifically falsified, so I ask questions about the treatment of
YEC in public schools:
How
should we "teach the controversy" for astronomical evolution and geological
evolution, where controversy exists because many parents and students believe
(mainly for nonscientific reasons) that the universe is young, even though
scientific support for an old universe seems extremely strong, and questions
are not scientifically justified? {from Questions
about Origins Education (and Worldview Education) in Public Schools}
When trying to design instruction
that is responsible, legal, and balanced, how can educators cope with
questions about young-earth creationism and the tensions that arise
due to a mismatch
between its strong popular support (mainly
in some parts of the Christian community) and weak
scientific support (across a wide range of fields, from astronomy
and geology to physics and biology)? {from the home-page
for Origins Education}
an educational conclusion: Public
school districts should make policies to minimize the possibility of YEC
being taught unscientifically, and teachers should make plans for "what
to say about YEC and how" because some students will be wondering
about YEC (whether or not they ask YEC-based questions); but design
theories should be judged on their own merits, and scientifically
logical evaluations of evolution should not be disqualified
due to concerns about young-earth creationism.
In my Overview-FAQ for
Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, Section
6b ends with these conclusions:
In my opinion,
• every scientific theory should be logically evaluated
based on scientific merit, not motives; evolution should not be rejected
because some of its advocates are atheists, and design should not be rejected
because most of its advocates are theists. { In conventional
scientific method, motivations can influence the proposing of a theory
but should not affect its evaluation. }
• sociological connections between ID and YEC are mostly
irrelevant in scientific debates, because ID arguments assume a conventional
old-earth history of nature; there are many similarities in the scientific
claims of ID and OEC, and in the evidence-and-logic that each claims as support.
• sociological connections between ID and YEC are very
relevant in education, because much of the political support for ID in
public schools (for teaching about ID, or allowing criticism of neo-Darwinism)
comes
from YECs, and also because teaching about ID will stimulate questions (both
friendly and hostile) about religion and creation (both YEC & OEC), which
might promote a climate of controversy that most teachers want to avoid.
• and sociology of another type is relevant for another
question: Proponents of ID rarely publish in science journals or get
research funding, but is this because their work is worthless, or because the
scientific
community doesn't want to acknowledge anything worthy in it?
And here are additional opinions:
If you read my entire Overview-FAQ, you'll see (in Sections 7A-7D)
that I think ID asks interesting scientific questions about evolutions (especially
chemical E,
but also some
aspects of biological E) and scientific methods (re: the logical limitations
of rigid methodological naturalism); and compared with the majority
of people in the "semi-big tent" community of ID, I am (in 5A-5G & 6A)
more friendly toward the science
and theology of evolutionary
creation, and (in 6B & 3A-4C) I am less friendly toward the science and
theology of young-earth creation.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
there will be links here later: |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/idyec-cr.htm
Copyright © 2005 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved