Open Science
is Better Science
This page compares
open science with closed science,
and explains why open science is better science.
Open and Closed: What is the difference?
The most common type of non-open science is "closed" by methodological
naturalism (MN), a proposal to restrict the
freedom of scientists by requiring that they include only natural causes in their
theories. The difference between science that is open and closed is the
difference in responding to a question: Has the history
of the universe included both natural and non-natural causes? In
an open science (liberated from MN) this question
can be evaluated based on scientific evidence; a scientist begins with MN, but
is flexible and is willing to be persuaded by evidence and logic. 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."
Open or Closed: Which is more useful?
In science — in a logical search
for truth about nature — is methodological naturalism a useful approach? Although
we can't be certain, probably MN will be useful if its assumptions are true,
if there is a match between "what MN assumes about the world" and "how
the world really is." For example, if the history of the universe
really has included only natural process, then...<snip>... But
if non-natural events really did occur during history,...<snip>... Imagine
that we're beginning our search for truth with an appropriately humble attitude
by refusing to assume that we already know — with certainty, beyond
any doubt — what kind of world we live in. 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
an MN-assumption, but does not insist that — no
matter what the evidence indicates — it is necessary to end with
an MN-conclusion. The assumption of MN
is treated as an assumption, as a theory to be tested (there is testable-MN)
instead of a conclusion to be accepted (with rigid-MN). 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.
Questions
The two paragraphs above are quoted from
other pages, which
also ask questions:
If a "design theory" is
false, could there still be design? ... What
are the four types of design? and the seven logical possibilities?
Can a design theory be evaluated? Yes. ... Can
a design theory be proved? No. ... Can a "controversial" design
theory be plausible? Yes.
Are design theories always controversial? No. ... Why
is there controversy? Why are there any doubts about whether a
design theory can be scientific?
What are the stages in an inquiry
about design? ... Is a design theory a creation theory?
Originally, all of
these questions —
and more — were examined in Sections 7A-7G of this page. But instead
of keeping all sections in this one page, during a major reorganization of
my pages about Origins Questions (finishing in January 2005) they were split
into several
smaller
pages, and I suggest that you read the new pages instead of this page. Here
is
a
description
of
the
new
pages
that
use
Sections
7A-7G:
• An overview-page
page uses many ideas (but not all) from 7A-7B-7C, in slightly revised and condensed
form, along with ideas from
other
places (including a few from 7D-7G),
to show how The Origin of Life poses
an interesting challenge for naturalistic science, and to explain the logical
benefits of an open science.
•
Critical Thinking in Closed Science uses 7D (with no revision,
except making links to other parts of the new page) along with other
ideas, plus illustrations from Michael Behe "adventures in non-publishing." As
an added bonus, the other half of the page is about Critical
Thinking in Open Science.
• 7G and 7C are closely related
(since they ask analogous questions about theories of evolution and design,
respectively) so they are combined — along with a new transition explaining
the similarities between the two sections — in a page asking "Can
historical science be authentically scientific?"
• Along with other ideas, 7E and 7F
are condensed and combined — with 7F in the introduction and left column,
and 7E in the right column — in Worldviews
and Science.
• One part of 7E, about Hidden
Arguments and Open Discussions, is a small but important part of Origins
Education in Public Schools.
In addition to these new pages, an old page — Open Science is Better Science (long version) — contains the original long versions of Sections 7A-7G, before they were condensed-and-revised to make the medium-sized versions you see in this page and in the new pages.
As you can see in the Table of Contents below, this page contains 7A-7G and lots of other stuff: the introduction above, and my views (below), followed by 7A-7G, plus three new sections (conceptual, theistic, open) and a long appendix with many topics. I thought about "splitting out" 7A-7G into a separate page, but when I tried this there were dozens of broken links (where one part of this page linked to another part of this page) and it would take lots of work to fix all of them, but I don't think the page would be improved because its "big picture gestalt" would be lessened, so it will remain as it was, all together.
Introduction Open and Closed (What is the difference, and which is more useful?) plus Questions My Views (it's my attempt to avoid misunderstanding) 7A. What is design? Directed Action and Undirected Nature, Design by Natural Process 7B. Can design be proved? Logically Justified Confidence, Estimating the Future of Science 7C. Can design be scientific? Questions: PRACTICAL, METHODOLOGICAL, METAPHYSICAL, TRIVIAL, important, difficult 7D. The Freedom of Open Science The Benefits of Open Science, Critical Thinking in Closed Science, Should we ask the question? 7E. The Problems of Closed Science Two Limits for Science, A Change of Mind, Bypass the Process and Claim the Support, The Futility of Humility, Metaphysical Materialism, Apologize or Improve? Hidden Arguments and Open Discussions 7F. Cultural-Personal Factors in Science Harmonizing Science and Religion, Cultural-Personal Factors, Recognize and Minimize, Scientific Authority, The Origin of Life, Theistic Science 7G. Can evolution be scientific? Observation, Prediction, Falsification; Is it bad to be a theory? The Designs of God, Distinguishing between Similar Theories Is science a game with rules?
Perpetual Denial? 2A. Theistic Action 2F.
My Views (old-earth creation) LINKS: Except for the non-italicized links (which open another page in a new window, leaving this page open in this window), all italicized links will keep you inside this page and will be fast! You can visit another area of the page, and then (*) you can return to where you were by using your browser's BACK-button. (* unless you're using Internet Explorer for Mac) |
My Views (in
an attempt to avoid misunderstanding)
Was nature created with the ability to naturally assemble itself
into complex life? I think there are scientific reasons to say NO. Based
on science and theology, my theory about "how God did it" is independent
creation of the first life, followed by old-earth
creation with occasional miraculous-appearing genetic modifications for
the production of complex life. Theologically, I think miracles in formative
history are "probable
but not necessary." I'm not a proponent of theistic evolution, but I think
it should be carefully considered, and evolutionary creationists (who think natural
evolution was God's method of creation) should be treated with respect as fellow
Christians.
What is the relationship between creation
and
design? A claim for design, but not a claim for creation, can be scientifically
evaluated. Michael Behe explains: "Although
I acknowledged [in Darwin's Black Box] that most people (including myself)
will attribute the design
to God — based in part on other, non-scientific
judgments they have made — I did not claim that the biochemical evidence
leads ineluctably to a conclusion about who the designer is. ... The biochemical
evidence strongly indicates design, but does not show who the designer was."
Some ideas from Section 7A (below) with minor revision, plus some new ideas, are in a page about Four Types of Intelligent Design. And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7A. What is design?
If you receive a radio signal — 2,
3,
5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — and you think, "probably this long string of
prime
numbers
was not produced by undirected natural process," you are proposing a theory
of intelligent design.
To explain the origin of a feature (an
object, organism, system,...), two possibilities are non-design and design:
1. non-design,
with undirected natural process producing the feature
(*);
2. design
(and production) by an agent using design-directed
action that converts the design-idea into reality; more specifically,
origin by design-action can be due to
2A. design (and construction)
by a natural agent (a human,...) using design-directed
action, or
2B. design (and creation)
by a supernatural agent (God,...) using design-directed
action.
A basic design theory claims only that "there is evidence for design-directed action," but doesn't try to explain the details of who, when, how,... The claim is that "it was either 2A or 2B." { A basic design theory can be supplemented with details, as in 2A and 2B, but this is optional. }
* But what appears to be non-design might be "design by natural process," as explained below:
Design
by Natural Process
What is commonly called a design
theory is a claim for design-directed action that
is empirically detectable and occurs during history.
There are four types
of design:
As described above, 2) design-directed
action by an agent can be either: 2A) design-and-construction
by a natural agent, or 2B) design-and-creation
by a supernatural agent.
But production of a feature by undirected
natural process — by what is
commonly called "non-design" — could be due to: 1A) design-directed
action that occurred at the beginning of history (in a design
of nature) and eventually results in production of a feature by undirected
natural process, 1B) design-directed action
that is empirically undetectable and occurs during history by
theistically guided natural process, or 1C) a process that actually
is undesigned, undirected, and unguided.
In this page, a theory proposing
empirically detectable design-action during
history (as in 2,
2A,
or 2B) will be called a design theory. There
are four basic types of design: 2A & 2B (in which a design theory is true)
and 1A & 1B (in which a design
theory
is
false).
Two cases
where a "design theory" is wrong (1A and 1B) actually involve design; only
1C would be truly undesigned. Therefore,
evidence against
a design theory (as I'm defining it)
is not evidence against design by unguided natural
process (1A)
or design by guided natural process (1B):
1A-design would occur if, in a supernatural
design of nature, one goal is to produce a universe with natural properties
that allow
some formative
history
(or maybe all of it) to occur by natural process. { For example, stars
naturally form — and eventually produce the heavy elements that are
used in living organisms — due to a highly unlikely combination of
natural properties such as nuclear force, mass-energy conversion, and gravity. Is
this "combination of natural properties" due to a design
of nature?
}
1B-design would occur if God supernaturally
guides natural process in a way that appears to be
natural and undirected, in order to produce one natural-appearing result instead
of another. { For example, the natural
processes of mutation and natural selection might be supernaturally guided
to produce a desired result. }
Probably we should use more than one term,
so we can communicate with more precision. Instead
of
just "design" we
should distinguish between detectable design (2A
or 2B),
a design of nature (1A), and undetectable
design (1B). { comment for reader: Recently
I've
begun
making
a distinction between DESIGN (including 2A, 2B,
1A, or 1B) and design (referring
only to 2A or 2B). Currently, this DESIGN/design terminology is used only
in my descriptions of Four Types
of Intelligent Design. Eventually
I'll revise all pages, including this one, so the DESIGN/design distinction is
used consistently.
}
directed or guided?
In 2A-design, "directed" means "design-directed
natural action by a natural agent" such as a bird moving straw and mud
into a nest. In this case, everything is natural
but the resulting feature (the nest) would not occur if there was only undirected
natural process, if the straw and mud were left
to "do
it on their own" without design-directed action by the bird. { The
meaning of "directed" is similar for 2B-design, except that in 2B
it's "design-directed
supernatural action by a supernatural agent." }
In the definitions of 2A-design and 1B-design,
notice the distinction between natural process
that is directed (by
a natural agent) and is guided (by a supernatural
agent). In
principle, humans can observe-and-evaluate the difference between natural
process that is directed or is undirected, so this is
a scientific question that can be investigated using
the methods of science. ( But in reality, sometimes it is difficult to
distinguish between directed and undirected, especially when there is an
attempt to avoid detection. } But we cannot observe the difference
between natural process that is guided or
is
unguided; this
is a theological question that cannot be satisfactorily answered
using the methods of science.
falsification:
Although design cannot
be falsified (because 1A or 1B is always possible), a design
theory can be falsified (using the criterion of "logically justified
confidence in falsity"), as explained in Sections 7B and 7C.
Who proposes what?
A design theorist
proposes a design theory (2) and has the option of supplementing this basic
claim by specifically proposing either 2A or 2B, and might also propose 1A
or 1B; creationists
propose three types of design (2B, 1A, 1B); theistic
evolutionists propose only design by natural process (either 1A or,
in a theory that is less deistic and more obviously theistic, 1B or 1A-and-1B).
An atheist proposes 1C or 2A for everything in history.
the two criteria:
IF, as defined above, a design
theory requires that design-action is empirically
detectable and occurs during history,
then (as shown in the table below) a theory is a non-design
theory if either condition (empirically detectable, occurs in history)
is a no.
Does
it actually involve design? |
Is
it empirically detectable? |
Does
it occur in history? |
Is it a |
|
YES |
1A (undirected
natural, designed but unguided) |
no |
no |
no |
YES |
1B (undirected
natural, supernaturally guided) |
no |
YES |
no |
no |
1C (undirected
natural, undesigned and unguided) |
no |
YES |
no |
|
||||
YES |
2A
(natural design-action directed by natural agent) |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
2B
(miraculous design-action by supernatural agent) |
YES |
YES |
YES |
Instead of just four types of design (seen above), there
are SEVEN
(1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, plus 2B-then-2A,
2A-then-2B, 2A-then-1B).
a more detailed
version of 7A (in another page)
Table of Contents
Some ideas from Section 7B (below) with minor revision, plus some new ideas, are in a page about Naturalism and the Origin of Life. And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7B. Can design be proved?
In science, proof
is impossible, but scientists can develop a logically justified confidence
in the truth or falsity of a theory.
mutual exclusion: Because a feature
was produced by either non-design or design (*),
if the evaluative status of non-design decreases, the status of design increases.
And vice versa. By testing for non-design, we can test for design.
We can conclude that a design theory is probably true
(if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is
probably false (if one non-design theory seems highly plausible).
* design and non-design are mutually
exclusive if, as explained in Section 7A, design
means "empirically detectable design-directed
action during the history of nature."
Logic requires that, during any intellectually rigorous attempt to explain the origin of an observed feature, scientists should consider all possibilities. There are (at least) five possibilities: Perhaps the feature was produced by undirected natural process and 1a) a current natural theory describes this process, or 1b) a future natural theory will describe the process, or 1c) no natural theory that seems plausible will ever be constructed because the process was too complex or unfamiliar or improbable for our minds to propose and accept. Or maybe the feature was produced by 2A) natural design and construction, or 2B) supernatural design and creation.
an application:
Current theories for a natural origin
of life seem highly implausible. Is it rational for scientists to
consider the possibility that life might have been the result of design-directed
action? Of course, certainty 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.
Future developments
in science could make the status of non-design increase (if we discover how
a feature could have been produced by non-design) or decrease (if new knowledge
reinforces our doubts about non-design). To decide which "future
science" is more probable, we must predict improvements
in current theories and inventions of new theories.
For example, we can look at each reason that a natural origin of life seems
implausible — due to properties like the unfavorable chemical equilibria for
synthesizing biomolecules, and the high degree of biocomplexity required for
metabolism and reproduction,... — and then try to imagine ways in which future
knowledge might change our views of each property. We can ask, "How
likely is each change?" and "How would it affect our evaluations for
a natural origin of life?"
To make good predictions about 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 ever happen" or "anything could happen." {an extreme
scenario for denial involves super-aliens from space}
In several areas, including the origin
of life, scientific analysis shows that design deserves to be accepted, not
as the only explanation, but as a potential explanation
that is reasonably plausible and is worthy of serious consideration and
further development.
Some ideas from Section 7C (below) with minor revision, plus some new ideas, are in a page asking, Can a theory of intelligent design be scientific? Also, 7C and 7G (plus a transition showing their relationships) are duplicated in a page asking "Can theories of evolution (and design) be scientific?" And additional ideas are in the earlier medium-long and long versions.
7C. Can design be
scientific?
The most common type of Closed Science is
defined by methodological naturalism (MN),
a proposal to restrict the freedom of scientists by requiring that they include
only natural causes in their theories. This section examines arguments — practical,
methodological, metaphysical, and trivial — for Open
Science (that rejects MN and allows theories of design) and Closed Science. The
basic question is simple: In scientific thinking and education, do we want
to give a higher priority to logic or naturalism?
PRACTICAL
Questions
In a search for truth about nature,
a design theory can be useful because it might be
true. If design really was involved in the origin of a feature,
but we ignore this possibility (by refusing to consider evidence for design),
a false conclusion is unavoidable.
When design encourages
critical thinking about non-design, this can improve the accuracy
of our evaluations (for current non-design theories) and our speculations
(about future theories). A theory of design can
stimulate creative thinking and productive action by proponents of non-design (who
are motivated to defend and improve their theories, and find new experimental
support) and design. In this way,
and others, theories of design can help us improve our understanding
of nature.
Design would have little impact
on the overall productivity of science, since most areas are not affected. And
many scientists will continue their non-design research even if they
hear a design claim that "maybe there is no non-design explanation." Proponents
of design want research about non-design to continue, because the goal
is to find truth; they want to supplement non-design research,
not replace it. { If your keys are not in the kitchen, can you
find them by searching in the kitchen? Perseverance
and Flexibility }
Current scientific customs (with
most scientists accepting MN) are not necessarily optimal, because traditional
customs are decided by people, and "what now is" does not determine "what
should be in the future." MN is a choice, and we can ask, "Is
MN always wise?" If we're being practical, should we view
science as an artificial game with rules (which
exclude design) or a real-life activity with goals? {
The important difference between games and reality is illustrated by
a Strong-Man Contest. }
What about past failures of claims
for design? A current design theory should be judged on its own
merit, not the weakness of superficially similar theories in the past.
METHODOLOGICAL
Questions
Typically, questions about methods
are in four areas: history, agency, observability, and falsification.
HISTORY: The methods used
in design are similar to methods in other historical sciences, such as
astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology. Because
most arguments against the scientific status of design are also arguments
against the scientific status of any historical science, I suggest that
you read the first half of Section 7G — Can a theory
of evolution be scientific? — and then read the rest of this
section.
AGENTS AND PREDICTION: When "what
happens" depends on the actions of an agent, this introduces an
element of unpredictability. But in a historical situation with
agent action, a scientist (in psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology,
or forensics, and maybe in origins) only has to determine what did occur,
not predict what will occur. In this
situation, the best explanation for "what did occur" is an agency
theory of design (proposing "agent action"), not a mechanistic
theory of non-design (proposing "only undirected natural
process"). In most ways, historical theories of design and
evolution are analogous, but a major difference is that intelligent design
is an agency theory, while naturalistic evolution is a mechanistic theory. Which
type of theory is better? The answer depends on what actually happened
in history, if we define a "better" theory as one that more
closely corresponds with the truth. If agent-action did occur,
an agency theory is better. If there was no agency-action, a non-agency
(mechanistic) theory is better.
OBSERVABILITY: Modern scientists
often infer the existence of an unobservable cause (an
electron, idea,...) due to the observable effects it
produces. Similarly, if we observe "signs of design" we
can infer design-directed action, even if the agent and action were not
observed.
FALSIFICATION: Due
to the mutually exclusive relationship between non-design and design (it's
either one or the other), the status of design can be increased or decreased
by empirical evidence (by observations), so a theory of design is empirically
responsive and is testable. Based
on a logical evaluation of observations, we can develop a logically
justified confidence in the falsity or truth of a design theory, concluding
that a design theory is probably true (if all
non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is
probably false (if one non-design theory seems highly plausible).
The Bottom Line: Inferences to
design can be scientifically justified.
For example, in Section 7A the "prime
number" design theory (re: a sequence of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,...)
is a result of scientific thinking: You observe a signal, creatively
construct and critically evaluate theories, and conclude that design-directed
action is more plausible than undirected natural
process. Scientists propose design to explain a wide variety
of features such as bird nests, ant hills, prey killed by a predator, a human
murder victim, paintings on a cave wall, metal satellites in orbit, and faces
on Mount Rushmore. In many areas of science, a logical inference that "design-directed
action did occur" can be scientifically justified.
For most critics of design, the main
concerns are metaphysical, not methodological.
METAPHYSICAL Questions
MIRACLES: Does design violate
methodological naturalism? Maybe. A basic design theory,
claiming only that a feature was produced by design-action (which could
be either natural design-and-construction or supernatural design-and-creation), does
not require miracles, but it does allow
miracles. / And science
is compatible with occasional miracles, if the universe usually operates
according to normal natural patterns.
LIMITED CLAIMS: In
any area (radioastronomy, homicide, origins,...) an inquiry about design
is a two-stage process: first ask "Was
there design-directed action?" and then
investigate the details. 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 "how, when, why, and who" details
of design-and-production).
DESIGN AND CREATION are not the
same. A design theory can be supplemented with details (about the
designer's identity and actions) to form a variety of theories about
supernatural creation or natural non-creation. A
design theory does not claim that we can distinguish between "creation
design" and "non-creation design" by scientific analysis,
it just claims that "design did occur." / analogy: A
scientific conclusion that "it happened by a natural process which
appeared to be undirected" does not require a metaphysical conclusion
that "it happened without God." Similarly, a scientific
conclusion that "it was the result of design-directed action" does
not require a metaphysical conclusion that "God did it."
METAPHYSICAL MOTIVATIONS: Even if a theory of design
(or non-design) is motivated by a desire to show that "God did it" (or "God
didn't do it"), this motivation should be irrelevant during theory evaluation. A
scientific evaluation should be based only on scientific evidence and logic; our
evaluations of a theory should not be influenced by our suspicions about the
motives of scientists who are proposing and defending the theory.
TRIVIAL Questions
Some arguments against design seem impressive
until you think about them, and then they seem trivial.
For example, a claim that "in natural science, natural phenomena
and natural history should be explained by natural causes" is
trivial. It is just faulty circular logic (assuming "science
is natural" to conclude "science is natural") camouflaged
with verbal ambiguity (using "natural" to
mean "pertaining to nature" and
also "normal-appearing").
It is also trivial to view science
as an artificial game with rules (which exclude
design) rather than a real-life activity with goals. {
Should we treat science like it was a StrongMan Contest? }
important questions:
Should we define the main goal of science as a
search for NATURAL explanations, or a search for
LOGICAL explanations? Of course, when we ask "Should science
be logical?", everyone agrees that YES is the answer. But disagreements
occur when we ask: If there is a conflict between logical and natural, which
criterion should have the higher priority? Should we be forced (by
methodological naturalism) to accept a "scientific conclusion" that
is less logical, simply because it is natural?
tough questions:
In Section 7B the concepts of proof (which
is impossible in science) and rationally justified confidence (which
is the practical goal in science) are illustrated by thinking about how we
can logically evaluate a design theory for the origin of life. What would
make this design theory unscientific? a claim that a natural formation
of life is extremely improbable? a perception (by others) that this claim
implies a non-natural cause? proposing a non-natural cause? Is
there any limit to the severity of criticism before a design theory becomes
unscientific? If severe criticism is accompanied by a proposal for a
new natural theory, does this make it scientific? Can we admit that "we
are far from finding the answer," but not "maybe there is no natural
answer"? Or, consistent with the restrictions of Closed Science,
should we control the thinking of scientists by removing their freedom to think
that "maybe..."?
my conclusion:
Some arguments against design are trivial,
while others (especially those about practical effects and methodology) are
more worthy, if only because they stimulate productive thinking and discussion. But
even though some arguments for Closed Science may seem strong initially,
I think the counter-arguments are stronger and more logical, and the closer
we examine Open Science, the better it looks.
a note to the reader: More than any other section, 7C has been diminished in conceptual content during its condensation into the medium-short version you've been reading. To make it easier for you to explore the arguments and counter-arguments more thoroughly, I've collected the two earlier versions of Section 7C (medium-long, and long) into a 7C-page. Table of Contents
Section 7D (below) is duplicated in a page about Critical Thinking in Closed Science, which contains new ideas, plus illustrative examples from the experiences of Michael Behe, and (in the other half of the page) ideas about Critical Thinking in Open Science. And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7D. The Freedom of Open
Science
This section, building on the foundation
of Section 7C, examines the benefits of scientific freedom and conceptual diversity.
The Benefits of Open Science
The difference between science that
is open and closed is the difference in responding to a question: Has
the history of the universe included both natural and non-natural causes? In
an open science (liberated from MN)
this question can be evaluated based on scientific evidence. In a closed
science (restricted by MN) the process of science is irrelevant, since
the inevitable conclusion — no matter what is being studied, or what is the
evidence — is that "it happened by natural process."
In open science, a scientist begins with
MN but is free to use both MN and non-MN modes of thinking, to consider a wider
range of possibilities that include both non-design and design. There
is metaphysical tolerance and open inquiry, with individual and communal freedom
of thought, and scientists can follow the data 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. An open science is consistent with
scientists' preference for intellectual freedom.
Critical Thinking
in Closed Science
Have the benefits of open science earned
it a gracious welcome from the scientific community? What has been the
response to theories of design? When Michael Behe submitted papers about irreducible complexity to
science journals, individual editors were interested, but groups were intolerant. One
editorial board concluded its rejection letter, "Our journal... believes that
evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible
and inevitable." {from Behe's Correspondence
with Science Journals}
In an open-minded free
science, the response would be different. Behe's thought-provoking questions
would be welcomed as a constructive challenge, an opportunity to gain a more
complete understanding of
evolution at the molecular level. The journals would be eager to communicate
new ideas, to host invigorating debates between critics of a theory and its
loyal defenders.
Instead, critical questions are resented
and rejected. This response does offer a practical benefit. It
lets a community defend the reigning paradigm by using its power to make
important
decisions: which views will (and won't) be expressed in journals and
textbooks, at conferences and in the media? what types of research,
by which scientists, will be funded? who will be hired and promoted? and
who will determine the policies of scientific and educational organizations? {
What happens in a closed science? details about Behe }
But a "closed science" does not
seem consistent with the lofty ideals of scientists, with their noble vision
of science as an intellectually free, objective pursuit of truth. Instead,
in a community of scientists who are exploring freely, thinking flexibly, and
dedicated to finding truth, Behe's tough questions would be used as a stimulus
for critical analysis, creative thinking, and productive action.
Should we ask the question?
In the near future, scientists will
disagree about the plausibility and utility of design, but conflicts are
common in science, and can be productive. Should journal editors wait until
proponents of design have irrefutable proof? As discussed in Section
7B, proof is impossible in science, and it can be difficult to confidently answer the
question, "Was design-action involved in producing this feature?" 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, not rigid and closed by dogmatism.
Some of Section 7E (below) with minor revision, plus new ideas, are in the right column of a page about the mutual interactions between Science and Worldviews. And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7E. The Problems of Closed Science
Two Limits for Science
What are the limits for what can claim
to be science? One proposal is methodological naturalism
(MN), which requires that scientific
theories can postulate only natural causes.
What are the limits for what MN-Science
can claim to explain? If we decide to accept MN, a second limit is logically
necessary: If an event really does involve a non-natural
cause, any explanation of the event by MN-Science (in terms of only natural
causes) will be incomplete or incorrect. This limit, regarding
the potential for unavoidable error in MN-Science, is MN-Humility.
A Change of Mind
In 1998, I was willing to support either
of two options: accepting MN (and acknowledging MN-Humility), or rejecting
MN. Summarizing the rationality of MN-plus-Humility, I said: "We
can view a restricted MN-science as one aspect of a broader 'search for truth'
that considers all possibilities without imposing metaphysically biased restrictions
on theorizing. In this open search for truth,... MN-science can be a
valuable resource that should be respected as an expert witness, but it should
not be
the judge and jury when we're defining reality and rationality."
Two years later, when I began revising
my overviews of Origins Questions, I concluded that it was more rational to
reject MN, mainly because (as explained in Sections 7B-7D) I had become convinced
that
open
science
is better science, but also because of the rarity and futility of humility.
The Futility of Humility
In principle, the combination of "MN-Science
plus MN-Humility" is logically acceptable. In practice, the result
is not satisfactory because even when MN-Humility is acknowledged (which is
rare) it is not effective. Why?
Think about what happens when a "non-scientific"
design theory and a "scientific" non-design theory both claim to describe
the same event, such as the origin of life. Due to the cultural authority
of science, the nonscientific theory is not respected because most people assume
that, for a theory about nature, "not scientific" means "probably
not true." Instead, the scientific theory is assumed to be more plausible,
even if the scientific evidence does not support it. And in a classroom
where "only science is taught," only the non-design theory is taught.
Bypass the Process,
Claim the Support
The Grand Conclusion
of MN-Science — that no matter what is being studied, or what is the
evidence, it happened by natural process — is actually
the assumption of MN. The circular logic of MN, which converts
a naturalistic assumption into a naturalistic conclusion, is automatic and unavoidable.
But usually MN-Humility is ignored. Instead of explaining the logical
weakness of MN-Science, 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.
Metaphysical Materialism
According to a worldview of metaphysical
materialism (Materialism), matter
(and its natural operation due to interactive forces,...) is all that exists.
This atheistic worldview denies the existence of God and theistic action.
As explained later (in Hidden Arguments), there is a tendency for methodological naturalism to promote metaphysical materialism, even though they are different in two important ways:
METHODOLOGICAL is not METAPHYSICAL
metaphysics --> methodology? No.
Most scientists think that metaphysics is not very important in their science,
and usually they are correct. { For example, MN makes no difference
in most areas of science, since nobody wants to propose non-MN theories in
these
areas. } For most scientists, it's easy to put metaphysics and methodology
into separate categories and decide that, even if they are not metaphysical
naturalists, they will temporarily adopt a methodology of "naturalistic
assumptions" while they are doing science.
methodology --> metaphysics? It
is not logically justifiable to convert the methodological assumptions of
MN-science
into a metaphysical worldview about "the way the world is," including
what is and isn't real. But this conversion does tend to happen, because
MN-assumptions automatically become scientific conclusions about "the
way the world is," and many people accept these conclusions about reality
without realizing that the naturalistic "conclusions" are actually
the naturalistic assumptions of MN.
NATURALISM is not
MATERIALISM
"natural" does not mean "without
God" if we define natural as "normal
appearing" (which doesn't affirm or deny supernatural action) and undirected
natural process as "appearing to be undirected and normal."
A theist believes that God is actively involved in natural process because
God designed and created nature, and constantly sustains
nature; and God can
guide nature so one natural result occurs instead of another natural result. Empirical
evidence cannot let us distinguish between theistic and nontheistic interpretations
of normal-appearing
natural events. *
And a naturalistic formative history is compatible
with miracles in human history. / *
But evidence for a design of nature does support a theistic
claim that natural properties were designed by God.
The main differences between naturalism
and Materialism are summarized in the table below,
which shows the distinctions between theistic creationism
(TC) proposing young-earth creation or old-earth creation, theistic
evolution (TE), deism (D), and atheistic
Materialism (AM),
regarding four questions: Was the universe designed and created by God?
Is God involved in natural process, by creating and/or directing it? Did
miracles occur in human history? Did miracles occur in formative history?
TC |
TE |
D |
AM |
|
universe created by God? |
yes |
yes |
yes |
no |
is God in natural process? |
yes |
yes |
? |
no |
miracles in human history? |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
miracles in formative history? |
yes |
no |
no |
no |
If we define "naturalism" to be a "mere naturalism" that involves only the claim that all events (in part of history, or in all of history) occurred by normal-appearing natural process, then the no-answers are naturalistic: There is a naturalistic formative history in theistic evolution (so it is partly naturalistic), and a naturalistic total history in deism and Materialism (so they are fully naturalistic). Do you see the difference between naturalism and an atheistic Materialism that answers "no" to all four questions? Theistic evolution is partly naturalistic, and deism is fully naturalistic, but neither is atheistically Materialistic.
Evolution and Atheism:
Some people, including both atheists and theists, try to link evolution with
atheism by implying that "If natural evolution could produce the complexity
we observe in nature, then God either does not exist or is not active in history."
This claim, which ignores the possibility of design by
natural process and theistic evolution,
should be challenged. Yes, evolution is required for atheism, so "if
atheism then evolution" is justified. But a reversed claim
that "if evolution then atheism" is not justified.
note: Eventually,
this page will examine the worldview implicatio ns (metaphysical, religious,
educational, ethical,...) of evolution (and sociobiology, evolutionary psychology,...)
and methodological naturalism.
Open Science and Open Discussions
Two proposals are discussed below: 1) we should adopt an Open Science;
but if not, then 2) in situations
where a Closed Science has been adopted, there should be a clear explanation
of MN-Humility and an open discussion of ideas that are relevant and
important.
Should we apologize or improve?
Sections 7B-7D describe some advantages
of an open science that is liberated from MN. The main reason to reject
MN is its logical deficiency: MN demands that scientists
should ignore some possibilities, even though logic
demands that scientists should consider all possibilities.
The timing of MN-plus-Humility: First,
we reach a conclusion by using an approach (MN) that is logically deficient.
Second, with MN-Humility we apologize for the logical weakness of our approach
by explaining why the conclusion might be wrong, but probably isn't wrong because
we should trust science rather than nonscience. / A summary of these
two steps: Bypass the process of science,
and claim the authority of science.
Another option, which seems more rational,
is to fix the deficiency by letting logic (not naturalism) be the highest priority
in scientific thinking. Appropriate timing is important. If we want
science to be an effective method for constructing accurate theories about nature,
we should let scientists use the entire process of
science (including a logical evaluation of all competitive theories)
when they are determining the conclusions of science.
Hidden Arguments
and Open Discussions
When MN is adopted in science or education,
how can we minimize the negative consequences? To reduce the impact of
Materialist implications and biased evaluations, we can improve the neutrality
of our metaphysics and the quality of our thinking. { Of course, these
are useful whether science is closed or open. }
Occasionally a Materialist
worldview is explicitly stated, as when Carl Sagan (winner of awards
for science education) opened Cosmos by asserting that "The Cosmos
is all that is or ever was or ever will be." More
often, Materialism is implicitly communicated, even if this is not intended,
when "no theistic action in scientific descriptions of the universe"
implies "no theistic action in the universe." Due to these implications,
ignoring religious perspectives (as in a simplistic policy of "teaching
only science") does not produce a neutral balance.
Implicit arguments can be persuasive because
only one view is presented, with no opportunity for counter-argument.
Because the arguments are hidden, they are not critically analyzed, so fallacious
reasoning can survive and thrive.
By contrast, open discussions will encourage
understanding and critical thinking. Possible discussion topics include
the goals and methods of science, arguments for and against MN, the logic of
MN-Humility, interpretations of natural process, scientific evidence for and
against theories of non-design and design. During discussions, important
ideas from major viewpoints should be expressed accurately (with no weak, distorted
"strawmen") so the ideas can be understood and evaluated.
MN-Humility can be introduced by waiting
for a topic, such as the origin of life, when humility is justified, and then
explaining how MN-science ignores one of the five logical possibilities,
and why "natural process for most events" is compatible with "supernatural
action for occasional events."
Strategies for coping with the challenges
that teachers face when they try to teach wisely and well, with integrity and
skill, are outlined in Section 8 of Origins
Questions.
A respect for religious perspectives, with
an absence of "faith versus reason" implications, is important.
Without respect, a discussion of important ideas can be harmful. With
respect and wisdom, it can be helpful and educationally productive.
All of Section 7F (below) with minor revisions, plus some new ideas, are in the left column of a page about the mutual interactions between Science and Worldviews. And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7F. Cultural-Personal Factors in Science
Harmonizing Science and Religion
Most people want their own ideas to
be logically consistent. This desire produces mutual interactions between
scientific theories and religious theories, with each influencing the other. Either
type of theory, or both, can be adjusted in an effort to achieve consistency. For
theories in the area of origins,
An atheist has
no scientific freedom, since only one conclusion (totally natural evolution
with no theistic action) is acceptable. An open-minded flexible
agnostic who says "I haven't decided yet" has freedom. But
a rigid agnostic who wants to remain agnostic
will want to reject any theory with theistic implications. A believer
in a non-theistic religion will prefer nontheistic
theories and interpretations. A theist has
options (young-earth creation, old-earth creation, or theistic evolution)
and is free to follow the evidence and logic of science to any conclusion. But
sometimes there is a theistic influence on science, since each theistic
position requires some adjustment (scientific and/or religious) to achieve
harmony between theology and science.
For a Jewish or Christian theist, five
variables that can be adjusted are: scientific interpretations of nature; theological
interpretations of the Bible; relative emphasis placed on scientific
interpretations and theological interpretations; theological theories
about the frequency of various types of theistic action by
God (with different combinations of appearance, degree of theistic control,
and context); willingness to use miraculous-appearing theistic action
for explaining the history of nature.
Cultural-Personal
Factors
During all scientific activities,
including theory evaluation, scientists are influenced by cultural-personal factors. These factors include psychological
motives and practical concerns (such as intellectual curiosity,
and desires for self-esteem, respect from others, financial security, and
power), metaphysical worldviews (about the
nature of reality), ideological principles (about "the
way things should be" in society), and opinions
of authorities (who are acknowledged due to expertise, personality,
and/or power). / These factors interact with each other, and
operate in a complex social context that involves individuals, the scientific
community, and society as a whole. Science and culture are mutually
interactive, with each affecting the other. / Some cultural-personal
influence is due to a desire for personal consistency between
ideas, between actions, and between ideas and actions. For example,
scientists are more likely to accept a scientific theory that is consistent
with their metaphysical and ideological theories. {this
description is from my integrative model of scientific method which
shows how cultural-personal factors are related to conceptual
factors}
Recognize
and Minimize
In science and in our studies of science,
we should recognize the influence of cultural-personal
factors in science, and (in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of
science in a search for truth) we should try to minimize the
influence of these factors. We should want scientific theories to
be evaluated by thinking that is objective and logical, not biased and
sociological.
How can we achieve scientific evaluation
that is more objective and logical? One way to pursue this noble
goal — using it as an aiming point and taking actions that will
move us closer to it, while humbly recognizing that we haven't yet achieved
it and never will — is to construct a science that is more open
and objective, more flexible and logical.
An Example of Cultural-Personal Influence
We accept the claims of physicists about
their theories of motion. By analogy, should we also accept the claims
of biologists about their theories of evolution? Maybe not. Why?
First, for some aspects of evolutionary
theory (but not for basic theories of motion) there are scientific reasons
for critical thinking and caution.
Second, there are reasons to suspect
that cultural-personal factors are influencing the evaluations of naturalistic
evolution within biology, so there are reasons for listening carefully
to critics of the "consensus conclusions" about naturalistic
evolution. There are two types of cultural-personal influence: in
biology an uncritical acceptance of evolution offers professional advantages
(in getting publications, funding, employment,...) for individuals; and
for the community, the accepted theory must be a naturalistic theory
because of methodological naturalism.
Naturalism and the Origin of
Life
For judging the depth of commitment
to a naturalistic "universe without miracles," it is fascinating
to see how the origin of life is handled by scientists
who study it, authors who explain it, organizations of scientists and
educators, and the media. For example, a textbook usually will
admit that we don't yet know how life became alive, but will imply that
life originated by natural process, instead of being humble
about naturalism.
Theistic Science
Sections 7A-7E explain the benefits
of open science. A concept that is
related, yet different, is theistic science; as
Alvin Plantinga explains it, "a Christian
academic and scientific community ought to pursue science in its own
way, starting from and taking for granted what we know as Christians." {details}
an
introduction for 7G:
In a theory
of old-earth creation, a scientist accepts the "consensus conclusion" of
current scientists about an old earth, but rejects the current consensus about
naturalistic evolution. This distinction inspired a web page — Is
a theory of old-earth creation logically inconsistent? — that,
in the four paragraphs below, explains the difference between proponents of
four theories (old-earth creation, design, nondesign, and young-earth creation)
when we ask: What are the capabilities of historical science, for questions
about age and design?
When we ask questions about age, young-earth
flood geologists are super-skeptical regarding the ability of historical science
(as in geology or astronomy) to reach any reliable scientific conclusions about
history. They ask, "Were you there?", and declare that a "no" means "you
can't know much about ancient history." [the other
three views disagree]
Similarly, when we ask questions about
design, nondesign theorists are super-skeptical regarding the ability of
historical science to determine anything about historical design-directed
action by an agent, especially if the agent and action might have been supernatural.
By contrast, design theorists (and
old-earth creationists) are confident that scientists have developed, and
can continue to improve, scientific methods (which are based on a logical
evaluation of observable evidence) to cope with the challenges of scientifically
distinguishing (based on a logical evaluation of the observable evidence
arising from design-directed action or undirected natural process) between
design and nondesign. As with all science, in these areas we cannot
obtain proof, but we can develop a rationally justified confidence about "a
good way to bet."
Flood geologists say "science can
do less (when thinking about age questions) than is claimed by the
consensus," while design theorists say "science can do more (in
thinking about design questions) than is claimed by the consensus."
This should help you see the differences between my claims (about "what is science") and the claims often made by young-earth creationists (about "what isn't science").
Can a theory of design be scientific? Because many arguments against "design as science" are just arguments against any historical science (in areas like biology, paleontology, geology, or astronomy) that tries to understand the history of nature. Therefore, to establish a foundation for deciding "Can design be scientific?" in Section 7C, we'll ask the analogous question for evolution.
Section 7G (below) is duplicated, along with 7C, in a page asking "Can theories of evolution (and design) be scientific?" And additional ideas are in the original long version.
7G. Can evolution
be scientific?
Some critics of biological evolution
(bio-E) claim it is unreliable and unscientific because: major bio-E cannot
be observed; E-theory does not predict; E-theory cannot
be falsified. Are these criticisms justified?
OBSERVATIONS: Bio-E is a historical
science, and the limitations of historical data provide reasons to be cautious
about conclusions. But scientists have developed methods for reducing
the practical impact of data limitations, so (although we should critically
examine these methods) a historical science can be scientific.
PREDICTIONS: In historical
science, prediction is not necessary. Instead,
in bio-E the goal is to retroductively explain by
constructing a historical scenario (connecting
the initial and final situations of a historical episode) that is consistent
with E-theory.
FALSIFICATION: If scientists
retain methodological naturalism (MN)
and assume that "everything in the history of nature happened by natural
process," they cannot falsify a theory of "bio-E somewhere in
the universe." But even without MN, it would be difficult to
falsify bio-E due to its explanatory flexibility: bio-E
has powerful explanatory resources (linked genes, changes of function,
developmental genes, statistical bottlenecks, long periods of time,...)
that — combined with the creative imagination of a scientist — provide
lots of flexibility for explaining almost anything, and it is difficult
to distinguish this hyperflexibility from genuine plausibility. In
addition, appeals to "future science" make bio-E even more difficult
to falsify. { Yes, bio-E could be falsified by evidence for out-of-order
origins, such as rabbits before trilobites, but this is irrelevant if E
is wrong in ways that are less obvious. } / Why is the plausibility
of bio-E usually over-estimated? Some reasons are outlined in The
Process of Logically Evaluating Evolution.
Two Kinds of Science: Operations and
Historical
The Scientific
Method does not exist, because no single method is used in the same
way by all scientists at all times. But scientists use scientific
methods that are variations on a few basic themes.
Some variations are due to differences
between 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). Both types of science are similar in most important
ways, especially in their use of scientific logic, but there are minor
differences.
Although repeatable controlled
experiments (with the situation set up by humans) can be done in operations
science, this is not possible for historical events. But this limitation
has inspired scientists to develop methods that reduce the practical impact
of this limitation. One way to reduce the impact is to use repeatable uncontrolled
experiments (with the situation set up by nature) and look for consistencies. These
consistencies let scientists develop reliable theories that usually are related
to (and are consistent with) theories in operations science.
A common misconcpetion about historical
science involves the timing of inference. A theory-based inference
about "what happens if this theory is true" can be logically valid even if
it is made after an event has occurred, or after observations are known. In
historical science, the goal is to describe and explain what did happen,
not predict what will happen.
Is it bad to
be a theory?
Would it be accurate to summarize a claim (which is disputed
above) that "evolution is unreliable because
it is historical" by proclaiming that "evolution
is just a theory"? No, because in science, "theory" does
not mean "unreliable." In fact, I don't think the word "theory" should
have any special significance, so in my model of Integrated
Scientific Method a theory can have a high
or low plausibility, a simple or complex structure, a narrow or broad domain,
and it can be descriptive or explanatory. Therefore, simply calling a proposal
a "theory" says nothing about its quality or characteristics.
Can we predict
the designs of God?
Do "imperfect adaptations" provide
evidence for bio-E? "God surely would not
have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. ...
Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution." Here,
in The Panda's Thumb, Stephen Jay Gould asserted that God "surely
would not," as if he knew what God would have done. But in
the Bible, it seems that God does not want a history that appears optimal,
or theistic action that appears obvious. {Why
isn't God more obvious? Can we prove God? }
The possibility of design-action that
is not "optimal and obvious" is opposed by advocates of bio-E,
who want a competitor with predictions that are different
from E-theory and easy to falsify. Young-earth
science meets both qualifications, and with independent creation (either
young-earth or old-earth) we might expect designs to appear independent and
optimal. By contrast, old-earth creation by genetic
modification (oeCgenetimod) predicts
that new species will appear to be modifications of old species, because
this is what they are.
Distinguishing
between Similar Theories
Can we distinguish between oeCgenetimod
and evolution? Maybe. With detailed data — such as
lab reports (for physiology, structure, DNA,...) for all organisms during
a period of change — it would be easy. But with the data
we actually have, it is more difficult.
Because oeCgenetimod includes two
mechanisms, continual natural-appearing evolution and occasional miraculous-appearing
macromutations, oeCgenetimod is consistent with most evidence for evolution. The
major differences are that oeCgenetimod raises questions (re: irreducible
complexity, rates of change, extrapolating from micro-E to macro-E,...)
about important details of bio-E.
Does oeCgenetimod have to be "more
different"? No. A "high contrast" with other
theories is not a requirement for a scientific theory. For example,
in most situations the predictions of Newton's classical mechanics and
Einstein's special relativity are almost identical. But we don't
demand that, if we are to take Einstein seriously, his theory must be
modified to make it differ from Newton's theory in other ways, for our
convenience, so we can more easily distinguish between his theory and
Newton's theory, using data that is easy to collect and analyze. Instead,
it's more important to use the criterion of perceived
accuracy by asking, "Based on empirical evidence and logical
evaluation, does a theory seem to match the way the world really is?"
Conceptual Factors
in Science
In my integrative model
of scientific method the conceptual factors
that influence theory evaluation are split into internal
characteristics and external relationships:
Scientists expect a logical internal consistency between a theory's own components. And when evaluating a theory's logical structure, one common criterion is simplicity, which is achieved by postulating a minimum number of logically interconnected theory-components. Also, in each field of science there are expectations for the types of entities and actions that should (and should not) be included in a theory. These "expectations about components" can be explicit or implicit, due to scientists' beliefs about ontology (what exists) or utility (what is useful).
The external relationships between theories (including both scientific and cultural-personal theories) can involve an overlapping of domains or a sharing of theory components. Theories with domains that overlap are in direct competition because they claim to explain the same systems. Theories with shared components often provide support for each other, and can help to unify our understanding of the domains they describe. There is some similarity between the logical structures for a theory (composed of smaller components) and for a mega-theory (composed of smaller theories), and many conceptual criteria can be applied to either internal structure (relating components within a theory) or external relationships (between theories in a mega-theory). ...
Inputs for evaluating a theory come from empirical, conceptual, and cultural-personal factors, with the relative weighting of factors varying from one situation to another.
quoted from my Overview of Scientific Method
Theory evaluation depends on these conceptual factors and also cultural-personal factors (psychological motives and practical concerns, metaphysical worldviews, ideological principles, and opinions of authorities, as described earlier) and empirical factors that are produced in a "reality check" by a logical analysis of empirical data, by comparing a theory's predictions with observations to see whether a theory's claims about "the way things are" matches the reality of "the way things really are."
Some effects of non-empirical factors (conceptual and cultural-personal) are examined in the next two sections, for theistic science and open science.
One general proposition
is based on a Biblical history in which God uses two modes of action: usually
normal-appearing and occasionally miraculous-appearing. Maybe the
most common mode of action in Biblical history (with God actively involved,
but only in normal-appearing natural process) was used throughout the formative
history of nature, as suggested by proponents of evolutionary creation.
Or maybe, as proposed in theories of old-earth progressive creation, the modes
of action were similar in both stages of history, with God using two modes of
action (usually normal-appearing and occasionally miraculous-appearing) in both
formative history and Biblical history.
This theological proposition can have a
liberating effect on a scientist. How? Since there are two options,
a theist — when looking at a particular feature (or the entire history of nature)
and asking, "Was this produced by natural process?" — is free to logically
evaluate the scientific evidence and answer either YES or NO. But a scientist
who is committed to naturalism must answer YES, since the inevitable conclusion
(no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence) must be that "it
happened by natural process."
This general proposition
decreases some constraints (those imposed by naturalism) on scientific theorizing
and evaluating. But specific propositions
can add constraints. For example: 1a) A few centuries ago,
overly rigid interpretations of the Bible led to a rejection of scientific
theories
proposing a moving, rotating earth; 1b) currently, a young-universe interpretation
of Genesis can encourage a scientist to reject theories proposing (and evidence
supporting) an old universe; 2a) if a totally naturalistic evolution
is considered theologically unacceptable, some aspects of naturalistic evolution
could be evaluated as being less plausible than is warranted by
data and logic; but
2b) if there is a theological objection to God "interfering" with nature, naturalistic
evolution could be evaluated as being more plausible than is warranted by
data and logic.
/ Of the three modern perspectives (1b, 2a, 2b), only 2b is allowed to
operate freely in naturalistic closed science.
What does "open science" mean
for an individual or a community?
An open-minded approach to science allows
maximum freedom for an individual. If any conclusion is acceptable, a
scientist can reach a scientific conclusion based on scientific logic.
An open-minded approach to science allows
maximum freedom in a community. For the aspects of science that are subjective,
that depend on cultural-personal or conceptual perspectives, a tolerant community
will allow full participation by scientists with different perspectives.
What are some of the perspectives operating
in origins science?
Currently, methodological
naturalism, which produces a closed science that allows only naturalistic
theories, is the dominant approach.
A basic design
approach asks a simple, open-minded question: Shouldn't we consider the
possibility that a particular feature was the result of design?
In theistic science,
a theistic worldview is used as a metaphysical foundation for doing science.
But theistic science is not a single way of thinking, since (as described above
in Theistic Science) it can lead to different theological
propositions about God, nature, and science.
• An open science is open to different philosophical perspectives. Instead of enforcing a monopoly by allowing only one perspective, as in most current origins science, an open science allows a variety of perspectives (including naturalism, design, and various types of theistic science) and is open-minded toward a range of scientific conclusions. Various aspects of open science can occur at the level of individuals, sub-communities, or the overall community.
Is it based on scientific logic?
It can be useful to think about evaluative factors (empirical,
conceptual, and cultural-personal) that are based
on scientific logic, and are not based on scientific
logic.
Factors that I'm calling scientifically
logical include empirical reality-checks
(made by comparing predictions with observations) and structural
logic-checks (regarding a theory's internal consistency and its external relationships
with other scientific theories that are well established *). These empirical/structural
factors are the foundation of scientific logic. { * But we should
not allow naturalistic worldview theories to be
defined as "scientific theories" that can be smuggled into science;
when investigating a historical event, scientists should begin with a naturalistic
assumption, but should not end with a naturalistic conclusion unless this is
indicated by the empirical evidence and scientific logic. }
Factors that are not
scientifically logical include psychological motives and practical concerns
(which lead to asking, "If this theory is accepted, will it help me get
publications, grant money, employment, and status? Will I gain more by
joining those who are arguing for this theory or against it? Who has more
power, and with whom should I form alliances?"), plus metaphysical worldviews
and ideological principles that are "manifested in science" when theories
are evaluated based on their external consistency with metaphysics and ideology,
and (to the extent that these are influenced by cultural-personal factors) conceptual
constraints on "the types of entities and actions
that should (and should not) be included in a theory."
Because all of these influences
are part of the actual practice of science, I'm asking "Is this factor
a part of scientific logic?", not "Is
this factor a part of science?" /
And calling it "not scientifically logical" does not imply an absence
of logic, since non-scientific theories (about metaphysics and ideology) do
have a basis in logic. Also, an individual who is influenced by asking,
"Will I gain more by arguing for this theory or against it?", is behaving
rationally on a professional and personal level. At the community level,
logic that is "not empirical/structural scientific logic" can be an
important part of the rhetorical "logic of persuasion" that is an
essential part of scientific practice. But none of these influences are
"scientifically logical" when we ask, "Are they consistent with
the noble goal of objective scientific evaluation based on empirical/structural
scientific logic?"
I proposed, in the "Recognize
and Minimize" part of Section 7F, that in a scientific
search for truth, we should try to focus on scientific logic (empirical and
structural) by trying to minimize the effects of other factors.
Is this a wise goal? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these
other factors?
Is an assumption true? (
Does it correspond to reality? )
For most scientists, searching
for truth is an important goal of science, even though it isn't the only
goal. If there is a match between "how the world really is"
and what an approach assumes about the world, probably this approach will be
useful in science.
For example, if the history of nature has
included only natural process, then methodological naturalism (MN) is correctly
assuming an all-natural history, and MN will be useful because it helps scientists
avoid being distracted by false theories about non-natural events. But
if non-natural events did occur during history, the premise of MN is false,
and MN will be detrimental when it inevitably forces scientists to reach some
false conclusions.
Similarly, if the earth really is young,
the correct premise of young-earth scientists will help them avoid becoming
distracted by false old-earth theories. But if the earth really is old,
a young-earth premise is incorrect, and it will lead scientists to reject old-earth
theories that are true.
Scientific Logic and Scientific Conclusions
But if we don't already know what kind
of world we live in, so we don't know which premises "match the reality,"
what is our best scientific strategy for finding truth? An open science.
For example, if we don't know for certain
whether the earth is young or old, an open science (with no constraints demanding
either a young earth or old earth) will let a scientist use scientific logic
to reach a scientific conclusion. { I think there is overwhelming evidence
for an old earth. }
Or imagine that we don't know for certain
what happened during history, so we ask a question: Has the history of
the universe included both natural and non-natural causes? In this situation,
we're humbly asking a question instead of arrogantly assuming an answer.
While we're in a questioning state of mind, exploring various aspects of nature,
an open science (not constrained by MN, not demanding an all-natural history)
will let scientists use structural/empirical logic — by analyzing a theory's
internal and external structure, and by using "reality checks" to
compare observations with a theory's predictions or retroductions — to reach
a conclusion.
In open science that is liberated from
MN, a scientific conclusion can be either naturalistic or non-naturalistic,
because "scientific" does not mean "naturalistic".
The logical process of open science cannot guarantee a correct conclusion, but
will allow it (whether or not history was all-natural), and scientists can use
scientific logic to reach a scientific conclusion. By contrast, a naturalistic
closed science will bypass the process of science (which is
not necessary when reaching the naturalistic conclusion demanded
by the naturalistic assumption) and, if history was not
all-natural, it will inevitably reach some wrong conclusions. Is this
what we want in science? { The main body of this page, in Sections
7A-7E, examines MN-science, and shows why an open science (that allows different
approaches, including naturalism and design) offers many benefits in a search
for truth. }
What are the
effects?
Let's look at some interactions between
a question (Did natural evolution produce all of the biocomplexity we now
observe?)
and two "closed science" approaches — 1) a type of theistic science
claiming that, based on interpreting the Bible and considering the character
of God, a totally natural evolution is impossible; 2) methodological
naturalism, which says "a scientist must assume that a totally natural
evolution was the only possibility and is the way it happened." — and 3)
an "open
science" approach.
For each type of closed science, #1 and
#2, if the premise is true (if the premise matches reality), probably the approach
will be scientifically useful. And if the premise is false, probably the
approach will be scientifically detrimental.
With each "closed science" approach,
a conclusion is reached before the evidence is evaluated, so the
process of scientific logic will be influenced by the pre-conclusion,
and the conclusion will be determined by the pre-conclusion.
But this influence only means that the logical process is biased; it does
not mean the conclusion is wrong. But neither approach should try to claim
the virtue of scientific objectivity. *
Within the current scientific community,
anti-evolution arguments based on theology (in Approach #1) will not be effective,
but pro-evolution arguments based on naturalism (in #2) will be effective.
Within the current scientific community,
#1 may be hazardous to the quality of a scientist's professional career.
But #2 is considered "the normal behavior that is expected" so there
will be no consequences, either positive or negative, although an exceptionally
clever and vigorous defense of evolution (and MN) may bring professional rewards.
Within much of the Christian community,
#1 will be rewarded with approval, status, and perhaps material rewards (invitations
to speak, donations to a ministry,...) while #2 brings disapproval. But
in other parts of the Christian community, a conclusion of "natural evolution"
will be accepted, and may even be applauded as being theologically preferable
to a God who "interferes with nature."
And in the context of a person's whole
life, which includes both science and nonscience, if #1 or #2 prevents a conflict
between the person's scientific theories and non-scientific theories, probably
this "minimizing of personal inconsistency" will be perceived as a
benefit. But it may not be an actual benefit if it prevents a person from
seeing the truth. { comment for the reader:
A "whole life" question is complex, is different for every person,
and many books (not just web-pages) could be written about it. In fact,
I feel this way about the entire "Open Science" section — here I'm
just skimming the surface of issues that deserve a more thorough treatment.
But that's a project for later, not now. }
* The two approaches analyzed above, #1 and #2, lead to decreased objectivity in science. By contrast, #3 — which is one form of open science, and is based on a general theological proposition making the modest claim that "maybe formative history was all-natural and maybe it wasn't, and either possibility is acceptable" — can have a liberating effect in science, leading to decreased constraints and increased objectivity. / In case you hadn't guessed, my own view is #3. {techniques for estimating objectivity}
Open Science and Actual Science
In real life, can a science be fully
open and totally objective? No. Individuals and groups will bring
their own approaches (involving worldviews, methodologies, ambitions,...) into
science. Some approaches are more "open to following the data wherever
it leads" than others; in the analysis above, for example, 3 is more
open than 1 or 2. But even if some individuals
and sub-communities adopt approaches that are closed,
the environment in which science operates can be "opened up" when
the overall scientific community listens respectfully
to all approaches, encourages scientific evaluations based on scientific logic,
and tries to minimize the effects of cultural-personal factors.
APPENDIX
Is science a game with rules? Perpetual
Denial?
Perseverance and Flexibility A
Model of Scientific Method
An Editor's Excellent Idea Theories
of Design and Creation
Design and Common Descent Conflict
Resolution in Science
How to Estimate Objectivity Flexibility
and Objectivity
2A. Theistic Action 2F. My
Views (old-earth creation)
3. Was the universe designed? 5.
Chemical Evolution
6C: Shifts of Meaning 6E:
Questions about Evolution
Why isn't God more obvious? Seven Types of Design
Is science a game with rules?
Some critics of design view science
as an intellectual game played with a set of rules, which include MN, that are
established by tradition, approved by consensus in the scientific community,
and enforced by funding agencies, journal editors, and hiring committees.
This is an interesting perspective.
In terms of sociology, regarding interpersonal dynamics and institutional structures,
it is an idea with merit. But it seems much less impressive and less appealing
when we turn to philosophy and think about functional logic and the cognitive
goals of science, when we acknowledge the distinction between games and reality.
The practical value of restrictive rules
is different in a game and in reality. To illustrate, consider the Strong
Man contests televised by ESPN. During these competitions, I've seen a
man tow a semi-truck with a rope, and carry a refrigerator on his back.
For the game, if one competitor wanted
to hook the semi to a tow truck or strap the refrigerator to a two-wheeler,
this would be cheating. It would provide an unfair advantage and would
not help in achieving the goal of the game: determining who is the strongest
man. In this context, the rule about "no mechanical help" is
useful.
But for reality, for accomplishing a practical
goal, the same rule might not be useful. If the real-life goal of a business
is to move vehicles or refrigerators quickly, over and over throughout the day,
using tow trucks or two-wheelers is a more effective strategy than asking a
person to do all the work.
It is obvious that a restrictive rule which
is useful in the context of an artificial game — such as requiring that a heavy
object must be moved by a human without mechanical help — may not be useful
in real life for accomplishing practical goals. When this principle is
applied to science, it seems more rational to view science as an activity with
goals, rather than a game with rules. Then we can ask whether the restrictions
imposed by MN will make scientists more effective in pursuing and achieving
the goals of science. More specifically, we can ask "Is MN a useful
strategy in our search for truth, in our development of increasingly accurate
theories about nature?" {back to trivial
objections in 7C}
Perpetual
Denial?  (What if design was proposed by space
aliens?)
Imagine a scientific community with trillions of super-intelligent
space aliens (IQ = 20,000) each with a life span of a billion years, devoted
to science (and using high-speed travel to explore a variety of environments
throughout the universe) for the past 5 billion years, who have not yet constructed
a plausible theory for a natural origin of life. Even in this situation
a denial of design would be possible, but would it be rational?
In the near future, the actual state of
human knowledge will remain much less advanced than this imaginary super-science,
and critics of ID will point out, with some justification, the reasons for cautious
humility when making claims for design. But now we know much more about
the origin of life than we did five decades ago, just after the original Miller-Urey
experiments, and what we've learned makes a natural origin of life seem much
less plausible. At some point in our knowledge, it seems rational for
scientists to ask, "Should we seriously consider the possibility that the
first life was not produced by natural process?" I think we've already
reached the point where this question is rationally justified. {back
to predicting future science in 7B}
Perseverance
and Flexibility
Perhaps the search by Closed Science
is occasionally futile, like trying to explain how the faces on Mt. Rushmore
were produced by undirected natural process (erosion,...) even though, when scientists
are restricted in this way, the finest creativity and logic will fail to find
the true origin. Perhaps MN is putting scientists in the position of a
man who is diligently searching 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 will probably be found by someone
who believes "the keys are in the kitchen" and is diligently searching
there, not by a skeptic.
In Section 7C, I ask a question: "Can
the pursuit of knowledge be hindered by a claim for design?" Then
I answer "no" because "many scientists
will persevere" but this depends on a variety of factors, inside
and outside science, including the psychology of perseverance. 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 stop wasting time on an approach that isn't
working and probably never will. 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 (not perseverance) will pay off." {from Productive
Thinking (creative and critical) }
back to Practical Questions in 7C
A
Model of Scientific Method
As part of my PhD dissertation, I developed
a model of Integrated Scientific Method that is
a synthesis of ideas (mainly from scientists and philosophers, but also from
sociologists, psychologists, historians, and myself) about scientific method.
This integrative model of science, which
has nine parts — Empirical Factors, Conceptual Factors, Cultural-Personal Factors,
Theory Evaluation, Theory Generation, Experimental Design (Generation &
Evaluation), Problem-Solving Projects, Thought Styles, Productive Thinking (creative
and critical) — is described in An
Overview of Scientific Method and A
Detailed Examination of Scientific Method. Hot debates about "the
nature of science" are discussed in a page that asks, Should
science be eks-rated?
back to the main body: cultural-personal factors or Is it bad to be a theory? or conceptual factors
Editing an Editor's Excellent Idea
With one journal, after Michael Behe submitted a tightly
focused paper (a reply to specific criticisms) the editor made an excellent
proposal for an expanded project that — consistent with the noble ideals of
science — would have performed a valuable service by encouraging the open discussion
of an exciting new idea: "The notion of intelligent
design is one that may warrant further exploration, even though the topic has
been dealt with extensively by both practicing scientists and philosophers of
science. Should this exploration take the form of contrasting viewpoints
in articles by two persons, published in the same issue, on the more general
aspects of the topic, then our editorial policy of presenting current issues
of significance in the biological sciences might be satisfied. /
Recast in more general terms, your article could present the "pro"
side of the issue, and in that context it could address some of the criticisms
that have appeared since your book was published, but it would have to provide
a much broader perspective. In particular, it would have to assume a readership
that is not familiar with your book, at least not in any detailed way.
An accompanying article could present the "con" side of the issue,
again taking a general perspective. No doubt your book would figure prominently
in both articles, but the theme would be modern concepts of intelligent design
rather than a specific publication. This approach would almost certainly
reach a broader readership than a detailed response to specific criticisms.
It also has the added advantage of allowing you to present a synopsis of your
entire case rather than just defending specific aspects of it. Such a
paired set of articles would imply that the topic is important, and therefore
would attract additional readers." { all quotes are from Behe's
Correspondence
with Science Journals }
This is a flexible "open science"
approach. But the journal's editorial board was less enthusiastic.
They protested that "it is not possible to develop
a meaningful discussion" between a design theory "based
on intuitive, philosophical, or religious grounds" and an evolutionary
theory "based on scientific fact and inference."
And they concluded, "Our journal... believes that
evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible
and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view
on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages.
Although the editors feel that there has already been extensive response to
your position from the academic community, we nevertheless encourage further
informed discussion in appropriate forums. Our journal cannot provide
that forum, but we trust that other opportunities may become available to you."
Although the editorial board recognizes
that "there has already been extensive response to
your position from the academic community," official recognition
(by publication in their journal) is denied. Why? They explain that,
in contrast with Behe's intuitive religious philosophy, their journal contains
pure science. But the situation is reversed. Although Behe's ideas
are based on observations and scientific logic, publishing them "cannot
be appropriate" because "our journal...
believes that evolutionary explanations... are possible and inevitable."
The rejection seems based on philosophical preference, not scientific merit.
Behe summarizes his experiences: "While
some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts
of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial
board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails."
For example, the collective silencing of
an individual's "excellent idea" is outlined above.
And when Behe submitted a paper to another
journal, the editor initially described, with regret, a problem — "I
am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy,
and I think it is counterproductive" — but eventually decided to
maintain a closed science, instead of boldly deciding to be the first editor
to challenge the status quo and move in the direction of open science.
The rejection was supported by a senior journal advisor who responded to Behe's
critical analysis with a generous proposal for delayed publication: "Having
not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given
the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again
in 1000 years." The editor told Behe, "I
would like to encourage you to seek new evidence for your views, but of course,
that evidence would likely fall outside of the scientific paradigm, or would
basically be denials of conventional explanations. You are in for some
tough sledding."
Of course, editors have a responsibility
to exclude papers that do not meet their standards for scientific quality.
But, as mentioned above, it seems that Behe's papers are being rejected because
they are "philosophically incorrect," not because they are scientifically
inadequate.
back to Critical Thinking in Closed Science
Theories
of Design and Creation
A basic design theory — before
it has been supplemented in ways that are theistic, naturalistic, or pantheistic — is
limited to claims that can be scientifically evaluated. Michael
Behe clearly explains the limits of his "design only" claims, in
a summary of ideas from pages 245-250 of his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box:
Although I acknowledged
that most people (including myself) will attribute the design to God — based
in part on other, non-scientific judgments they have made — I did not
claim that the biochemical evidence leads ineluctably to a conclusion about
who the designer is. In fact, I directly said that, from a scientific
point of view, the question remains open. In doing so I was not being
coy, but only limiting my claims to what I think the evidence will support. To
illustrate, Francis Crick has famously suggested that life on earth may have
been deliberately seeded by space aliens (Crick and Orgel 1973). If Crick
said he thought that the clotting cascade was designed by aliens, I could not
point to a biochemical feature of that system to show he was wrong. The
biochemical evidence strongly indicates design, but does not show who the
designer was. {from Philosophical
Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics}
Here, Behe is explaining why — even
though his theory claiming that "design has occurred" can be scientifically
evaluated — he is not claiming "creation has occurred" because,
based on the scientific evidence he is considering, this claim cannot be
scientifically evaluated.
The table below is from The Process of Logically Evaluating Origins Theories in which the terms (micro-E, minor macro-E, basic fossil-E,...) are defined. A theory of old-earth macromutational creation (which in Section 7G is called old-earth creation by genetic modification) will be defined soon, in "Design and Descent."
Logical Comparisons
of
Design, Creation, and Evolution
The major differences between design, creation, and evolution
(E) are
summarized
in this table:
components of E-theory (for each component, does a theory say yes or no?) |
totally natural evolution |
intelligent design |
old-earth macromutational creation |
old-earth independent creation |
young-earth independent creation |
creation theories of 1800 |
micro-E and minor macro-E |
YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | no |
old earth and basic fossil E |
YES |
? | YES |
YES |
no |
no |
common descent |
YES
|
? | YES | no | no | no |
natural Total Macro-E |
YES | no | no | no | no | no |
claims that " God did it" |
? | ? | YES | YES | YES | YES |
If you carefully compare the differences
between theories, you can see why — when these differences are ignored — theories
of natural evolution will be considered more plausible than a logical
evaluation of evidence would justify. { The page about "Process
of Logically Evaluating..." explains why this occurs, and how to avoid
it. }
In the "intelligent design" column,
three answers are "?" because a basic theory of design neither affirms
nor denies an old earth or common descent (as
explained below) or theistic creation. But
since all modern design theorists affirm micro-E and
minor macro-E, this is a YES.
Design
and Descent
Some theories of creation affirm
common descent, while others
reject it. According
to theories of old-earth creation, God's creative activity, both natural-appearing
and miraculous-appearing, was
spread
over
billions
of
years. There are two basic types of
old-earth creation: with independent creation "from
scratch" (without common descent, so there
would not necessarily be any genetic relationships with existing species), similar
to the independent creation in young-earth creation; or with
common descent because macromutational creation involves an extensive modification
(by changing, adding, or deleting) of the genetic material for some members of
an existing species. Thus, an old-earth theory of design can claim NonDesign-Descent
(with independent creations) or Design-Descent (with macromutational genetic
modifications).
To make a logical evaluation, we must abandon
a two-theory approach. Instead, we should think in terms of three (or more)
theories: Total Macro-Evolution and Descent-Design (which agree about common
descent),
and
NonDescent-Design. In a three-way comparison, evidence against descent
counts against Total Macro-E and Descent-Design, and it counts for NonDescent-Design. Similarly,
evidence for descent counts for two theories (Total Macro-E and Descent-Design)
and against one theory (NonDescent-Design). But evidence about descent,
either for or against it, does not help us distinguish between Total Macro-E
and Descent-Design.
Does a basic theory of design either
affirm or deny common descent? No. Since a basic theory of design
does not have to explain details (about when, how, why, who,...) it can answer
questions about an old earth or common descent with a noncommittal "I
don't know." Thus, the two "?"s in the tables above.
But conventional theories of neo-Darwinian
E (which make a claim for Total Macro-E by undirected natural process with no
design) require both an old earth and common descent, so evidence against either
would be evidence against E and for biological design. Therefore, some
proponents of design argue against common descent (or an old earth) because
they think this is justified by the evidence and will be helpful — even though
it isn't necessary, because it is only one of several possible ways that evolution
might be false — in providing evidence against non-design evolution.
Other proponents of design, including myself,
think the scientific evidence does indicate common descent (and an old earth)
but not Total Macro-E. If logical scientific evaluation provides support
for common descent, arguing against common descent is counter-productive in
building a case for design because this will focus attention on aspects of biology
where we think the evidence is consistent with evolutionary theory, and will
distract attention from important questions — about irreducible complexity,
rates of change,... — where evidence indicates that a theory of Total Macro-E
may be incorrect.
back to Design and Creation in Section 7C
A little earlier, a major
"clash of paradigms" in the 1950s resulted in the emergence of plate
tectonics — which had been the target of ridicule a few decades earlier, with
its proponents being ostracized from the field of geology — as a surprise winner.
The 1950s also witnessed a challenge to
the dominance, in American psychology, of a behaviorist approach. One
reason for the previous dominance of behaviorism was its consistency with the
philosophy and methodology of positivism, which
asserted that scientific theories should be restricted to what can be observed,
that science should not postulate the existence of unobservable entities, actions,
or interactions. The restrictions imposed by positivism are compatible
with behaviorist psychology, which avoids the concept of "thinking" that cannot
be directly observed. But eventually, positivism and behaviorism were
challenged, and although both have survived as minority viewpoints, they are
not dominant. Most modern scholars, in science and outside it, prefer
a non-positivist philosophy (that allows unobservable entities in theories)
and non-behaviorist psychology (that allows an examination of "ideas"
that previously had been considered inappropriate for authentic science).
Centuries earlier, in the field of astronomy,
noncircular motion was considered inappropriate in 1600, but in 1700 it was
acceptable. What caused this change? The theories of Kepler and
Newton. First, Kepler formulated a description of planetary motions with
orbits that were elliptical, not circular. Later, Newton provided a theoretical
explanation for Kepler's elliptical orbits by showing how elliptical motion
can be explained by combining his own theories of motion and gravitation.
For a wide range of reasons, scientists considered these theories — which postulated
noncircular celestial motions — to be successful, both empirically and conceptually,
so the previous prohibition of noncircular motions was abandoned.
back to Should we ask the question?
Techniques for Estimating
Objectivity
While discussing open science, I claim that some approaches
to science lead to "decreased objectivity" while other approaches
produce "increased objectivity." But how can we define and measure
objectivity?
One method is based on the premise that
objectivity is related to flexibility. Based on this premise, in order
to estimate objectivity we ask: Has a scientist already decided, due to
non-scientific criteria, that a particular theory must be correct, or
(if this was indicated by the evidence) could the scientist be open-minded and
decide to accept another theory? { The following section, Flexibility
and Objectivity, provides an illustration. }
A second method is based on the premise
that if a conclusion was based on pure scientific logic (by analyzing theory
structures and using empirical "reality checks"), it would be objective.
One way to apply this method is outlined below:
Just as Newton tried
to imagine the characteristics of "motion without friction," we can
try to imagine the characteristics of "science without cultural-personal
influences." By comparing this idealized science with actual science,
we can estimate the influence exerted by various types of cultural factors,
and how these affect the process and content of science, in the short-term and
over longer periods of time. ... But how does one try to imagine what
science would be like, in a certain field, without the thought style that operates
in this field? ... One strategy for characterizing "the effects on
theory evaluation" of a thought style is to imagine several models of science,
each with a different thought style, and then compare the results of theory
evaluations (made by scientists operating in the context of each model) with
each other, and with the actual theory evaluation in the situation being analyzed.
{quoted from Tools
for Analysis: Idealizations and Range Diagrams}
back to What are the benefits?
Flexibility and Objectivity
The table below shows a
range of people (in the purple column at the left), a
range of conclusions (in a green row at the top), and a
range of responses (in the white cells). The
five imaginary people have decided, based on theological criteria, that
"design-directed action by God" certainly did occur (at one extreme),
certainly didn't occur (at the other extreme), with three intermediate views.
Now imagine five different science scenarios in
which an unbiased evaluation of the evidence indicates that the probability
of design-directed action varies from "certainly did occur" to "certainly
didn't occur." The responses (to each scenario,
by each person) vary from +++ (Wow, am I happy!) to — (This is worse
than ants at a picnic!) and a dreadful dissonance that, if not resolved, could
produce mental anguish due to a recognition of personal inconsistency.
THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION about design-directed action by God |
SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION
about design-directed action |
||||
1 certainly did occur |
2 probably did occur |
3 maybe, maybe not |
4 probably didn't occur |
5 certainly didn't occur |
|
A. certainly did occur |
+ + + |
+ |
ok? -? |
— |
dissonance |
B. probably did occur |
+ + |
+ |
OK? |
ok? -? |
- |
C. maybe, maybe not |
OK |
OK |
OK |
OK |
OK |
D. probably didn't occur |
- |
ok? -? |
OK? |
+ |
+ + |
E. certainly didn't occur |
dissonance |
— |
ok? -? |
+ |
+ + + |
According to a premise that "objectivity
is related to flexibility," as described above, a person who
doesn't care about the outcome (whose predisposition is an indifferent "maybe,
maybe not") can be the most objective. For this person, no matter
what the evidence indicates, it will be personally acceptable, so there
is much less motivation to evaluate
the evidence in a non-objective way.
By contrast, a person who is deeply committed
to a "certainly did occur" view will be highly motivated, in order
to maintain personal consistency, to interpret the evidence in any way that
is necessary to make it seem (to self and others) that "certainly did occur"
is the most rational conclusion. Notice the steep gradient of emotions
for the extreme views (A and E), compared with the plateau for the objective
C. The "probably" positions (B and D) do care about the scientific
outcome, but they have some flexibility, analogous to a weather forecaster who
predicts "80% chance of rain" and, when it doesn't rain, says "Well,
that was the 20% that I predicted." And if a person is not deeply
committed to maintaining an extreme view, a flexible response might be: "Previously
I thought design certainly didn't occur, but the evidence indicates otherwise,
so I'll change my view."
Of course, scientific objectivity isn't
the only goal in life. A person may think that benefits (scientific,
intellectual, spiritual, social, political,...) will arise from avoiding the
noncommittal
"maybe, maybe not" indifference of C, and these benefits are more
important than the loss of objectivity. And if a non-scientific source
of knowledge leads to a predisposition that is true (that matches reality),
this can be a scientific benefit in guiding a scientist's experimenting, theorizing,
and evaluating.
The following sections (2A, 2F, 3, 5, 6C, 6E, and 2C) are from my Introductory Overview of Origins Questions:
2A.
Theistic Action
When we're developing our worldviews (our
theories about reality), an interesting question is:
If God exists, what does God do?
According to the Bible, God designed and created the universe, continually sustains its ongoing operation, and can influence events in ways that appear natural (normal, consistent with the usual operation of nature) or miraculous (not according to our usual expectations).
2F.
My View (old-earth creation)
What is my view of origins? I
think that:
the universe and earth are billions
of years old,
the first life was independently
created, and
biological development occurred
by "normal-appearing natural process" (with genetic changes sometimes
guided by God *) supplemented by occasional "miraculous-appearing theistic
action" to modify some genetic material (by change, addition, or deletion)
in an existing species. / * I define "natural" to mean
"normal appearing," not "without God."
claims for intelligent design (based on
"signs of design" that we can observe) are more scientifically justifiable
than claims for divine creation. {Why?}
Why are these my views? It seems
to me that:
There is abundant scientific evidence for
an old earth, and an old earth is theologically satisfactory;
based on scientific evidence, a natural
origin of life is extremely improbable, and
natural process alone was not sufficient
to produce the biological complexity we observe;
compared with independent creations (of
new species that would not necessarily have any relationships with existing
species), genetic modifications (to create new species) are more scientifically
plausible, and are more consistent with a Biblical history in which God usually
works with currently available resources instead of "starting over from
scratch."
3.
Was the universe intelligently designed?
Scientists are discovering that many
properties of the universe are "just right" for a variety of life-permitting
phenomena. One explanation is that the universe was cleverly designed.
Other explanations are that "we're just lucky" or that if there were
an immense number of universes, extremely improbable things (like properties
that allow intelligent life) would occur in one of these universes.
All of these theories seem impossible
to test, due to an absence of data about what existed and what happened before
the beginning of our universe. But theistic beliefs and living by faith
are compatible with an absence of scientific proof for the existence of God.
And when all things are considered, I think the most plausible theory is that
"there was an extremely clever designer and awesomely powerful creator
of the universe."
Anthropic
Principle & Fine Tuning: Multiverse and/or
Intelligent Design?
Can
we prove the existence of God? (Why isn't God more obvious?)
back to Design by Natural Process or Naturalism is not Materialism
5.
Chemical Evolution
In an attempt to explain the origin
of life, scientists propose a two-stage natural process:
1) formation of organic molecules, which
combine to make larger biomolecules;
2) self-organization of these molecules
into a living organism.
What scientists are learning is that the complexity required for life (in terms of biomolecule formation and self-organization) is much greater than the complexity possible 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.
back to Can design be proved? an application
6C:
Shifts of Meaning
Often, support is illogically shifted from
a strongly supported meaning of evolution (such as basic "old earth"
progressions in the fossil record, or micro-E changes that occur in drug-resistant
bacteria, peppered moths, and finch beaks) to a less strongly supported meaning
(like Total Macro-E).
Often, scientific evidence against young-earth
creation is shifted onto old-earth creation; and the important scientific
differences between two old-earth theories (independent creation and genetic
modification) are ignored.
With an evolution-shift
the implied support increases, with a creation-shift
it decreases. But in each case the shift (and associated
implication) is not logically justified.
This section builds on the foundation of 6A (The Many Meanings of Evolution) and 6B (The Many Meanings of Creation). Principles for "avoiding illogical shifts" are carefully examined in The Process of Logically Evaluating Origins Theories.
6E:
Questions about Evolution
We should critically
evaluate the plausibility of an extrapolation from micro-E through minor
macro-E (such as a speciation, due to an evolution of reproductive barriers,
between otherwise similar species) to Total Macro-E
by asking "How many mutations and how much selection would be required,
how long would this take, and how probable is it?"
Another important question is whether systems
that seem irreducibly complex (because all parts
seem necessary for performing the system's function) could be produced in a
step-by-step process of evolution, since there would be no function to "select
for" until all of the parts are present.
back to Similar
Theories or Critical Thinking in Closed Science or
Design and Descent
Why
isn't God more obvious? (a part of Section
2C)
A QUESTION: Does God want us to be certain about
His existence and activity?
Each person can use evidence (historical, personal, and scientific) to estimate
the plausibility of various worldviews, but there is no logically rigorous proof
for any worldview.
CHOICE AND FAITH: I think this state
of uncertainty is intended by God, who seems to prefer a balance of evidence,
with enough logical reasons to either believe or disbelieve, so a person's heart
and will can make the decision. We have freedom to choose what we really
want, and an opportunity to develop the "living by faith" character
that is highly valued by God, with a trust in God serving as the foundation
for all thoughts and actions of daily living.
For a deeper exploration of this question:
Is there proof of God's existence
and activity?
back to Can we predict the designs of God?
Seven Types of
Design
Section 7A describes
four types of design, with design-directed action that converts a design-idea
into reality. The design-action can be detectable and during
history (by an agent that is natural or supernatural, 2A or 2B), or undetectable and during
history (1B), or at the beginning of history to actualize
a design of
nature (1A). Section 7A assumes that the design-idea and design-action
are by the same agent. But there also might
be agent-mixing "hybrids" in which a design-idea (by
one
agent) is actualized using design-action (by
another agent). As shown in the table below, for example,
in 2A-then-1B, a design-idea by a natural
agent (2A) is actualized with normal-appearing natural action that appears
to be undirected yet is undetectably guided by a supernatural agent (1B). According
to traditional theology, this is one way for God to answer a prayer.
in 2A-then-2B, a design-idea by a natural
agent (2A) is actualized with miraculous-appearing directed action by a supernatural
agent (2B). This is another way for God to answer a prayer.
in 2B-then-2A, a design-idea by a supernatural
agent (2B) is actualized with normal-appearing directed natural action by a
natural
agent (2A). This occurs when a human does the will of God, to help achieve
a
goal of God.
DESIGN-ACTION |
2A: DESIGN-IDEA
by creature |
2B: DESIGN-IDEA
by God |
1A — undirected
NATURAL PROCESS (not guided by God) |
not possible
|
1A
{ 2B-and-1A } |
1B — undirected
NATURAL PROCESS (guided by God) |
2A-then-1B
(prayer answer) |
1B
{ 2B-and-1B } |
2A — design-directed
NATURAL PROCESS (by natural creature) |
2A |
2B-then-2A
(do will of God) |
2B or 2A' —
design-directed MIRACULOUS-APPEARING (by creature or God) |
2A-then-2B |
2B
{ 2B-and-2B } |
In this section, each reference to "God" could
be replaced by "supernatural agent", but I'm saying "God" to
make things simple and definite, to make it easier for readers to understand
the different types of design in terms of traditional Judeo-Christian theology.
In traditional theology, many actions of God — those
actions, such as 1A and 1B, that are not a direct response to prayer — are
called providence.
We can also define
another type of design, 2A-and-2A', in which a design-idea by a natural agent
(2A) is actualized with miraculous-appearing natural action by a natural
agent (2A'). This occurs when an illusionist does something — such
as pulling a rabbit out of a hat, making an elephant disappear, or temporarily
sawing a person in half — that may appear to be miraculous, or at least
very mysterious and astounding, by using natural skill (sleight of hand, misdirection,...)
or technology (smoke and mirrors, special cabinets,...). In this case,
the design-action is directed natural process (2A), but to acknowledge the
special characteristics of this natural process (it is miraculous-appearing,
not normal-appearing) I'm calling it 2A' rather than 2A. { It is "miraculous
appearing" from the perspective of a person who is fooled by
the illusion. But an expert (such as a fellow illusionist) who is skilled
at observing-and-evaluating this type of action will understand what is happening,
and will correctly perceive the design-action as normal-appearing 2A-and-2A
rather than miraculous-appearing 2A-and-2A'. }
2A-and-2A' is the same as 2A-and-2A ontologically (based
on what each actually is), but epistemologically (in
how each is perceived and interpreted by a non-expert) they are different. This
is an interesting variation of the five logical possibilities because
(even as a non-expert) you are usually confident that you are seeing 2A (natural
design-action) even though it looks very unusual (toward the "miraculous" end
of a continuum from normal-appearing to miraculous-appearing), and your belief
about how it's done could be a current theory (you already have the "process
of illusion" figured out), a future theory (you'll understand "how
it was done" later when you observe-and-think more carefully, or have
it explained to you), or no theory (you'll never understand it). {
But this situation differs, in important ways, from design-questions such
as the origin of life.
}
In 2A-and-2A' perhaps the designer intentionally
calls attention to the result of a design-action, with the goal of making
it obvious so everyone will notice it and be amazed. But in other situations
the goal is to hide the design so it will appear to be non-design, so nobody
will notice because the "directed natural process" appears to be "undirected
natural process." This occurs, for example, when a criminal tries
to hide a crime and escape detection, or when artists want to make a "designed
event" (such as a tidal wave in a movie) look like a natural event. Although
in principle we can distinguish between directed and nondirected, based on
a logical evaluation of evidence, in practice this can be challenging, so
a "false negative" (saying "it was non-design" when it
actually was design) is possible, and so is a "false positive" (by
incorrectly claiming "it was design").
In 1B-design, with supernatural guidance
of undirected natural process, why might God want to achieve a design-result
in a way that doesn't look like design-action? One possiblility — asking "Why
isn't God more obvious?" — is described above. And
another page looks more closely at theistic
action.
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. |
Sections 7A-7G have been split up, condensed, and An Introductory Overview
of Origins
Questions the original "long versions" of Sections 7A-7G Pages by other authors who ask And other pages by Craig Rusbult are in also, |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/sci-cr.htm
Copyright © 2002 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved