>So, if ID theory is to have a future in journals and science generally, it
>has to get off the stupid religion kick and actually *be* science. It has to
>do something more useful in a *scientific* sense than provide a
>non-predictive, non-implicative "Just So" story.
I agree with this (although I'm not nearly as certain as Chris that
"ID theory" is on a "religion kick"). As Glenn points out, ID
clearly needs to start coming up with auxilliary hypotheses
that make predictions about the world and imply things should
exist. If we thus find what is predicted/implied, due to
experimentation, ID would clearly be acting in a scientific
manner.
>This is actually theoretically possible; I can think of several ways in
>which design *could* be exhibited in Nature (and I'm sure I could find
>many more, if I put my mind to it).
Very good. Let's explore these.
>It's truly design-specific evidence that needs to be found.
I don't agree. One need only find evidence that makes more
sense in light of ID than without it. After all, the evidence
of darwinian evolution is not darwinian-evolution-specific.
For example, Darwin's explanations for origins do not
amount to a refutation of ID, nor are they examples that can only
be explained by natural selection. They are simply an *alternative*
way of explaining and viewing the world.
>For example, if someone found that a major portion of the genetic material of
>the human genome consisted of a ludicrously simple encoding of the digits of
>pi to ten million decimal places, I would be *very* impressed (I do *not*
>mean such silliness as "The Bible Code" or whatever it was. I mean,
>"3.14159265 . . . " for ten million digits worth of pi). I would take this
>as proof of a designer (though not a non-naturalistic designer; I cannot
>even imagine how a true proof of a non-naturalistic designer would be
>logically possible).
In my opinion, it makes for a good example for everything that is wrong
with this type of approach.
First of all, yes something like this would be taken as "proof of a
designer." But we were supposed to be looking for fingerprints
of design in nature, not some "proof" of a designer. Again, we're
back to leaping from complete skepticism to certain proof, where
all the middle ground is excluded for unknown reasons.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is that Chris' example
fails to provide the very thing he asks from ID, namely, a
theory/hypothesis that makes predictions and leads to
implications. Now, finding pi encoded in the human genome
would surely lead us to conclude a designer tinkered with
the genome, but it is not something predicted or implied
by ID "theory." Thus, unless we have a good theory that
would cause us to predict and expect a message encoded in
the genome, ID would not be acting scientifically even if
some ID theorist did find such a message. Chris seems to
be confusing the demand for a proof of the designer with
the demand that ID begin coming up with scientific
hypotheses.
Now, I cannot think of any good reason why the discovery
of pi in the human genome would follow from the truth of ID.
Thus, the failure to find pi in the human genome has no
significance to the truth of ID.
But let's consider some other things wrong with this example.
If indeed some designer put ten million digits worth of
pi in the human genome, what kind of designer does this imply?
First of all, how do you encode pi? There are only four digits
in DNA, yet they would need to code for ten. Thus, we would
have to find the code that relates arabic numerals to nitrogenous
bases. Let's say we find that each number is encoded by two
nucleotides, meaning pi is now represented by 20 million base
pairs. If we were to find this, one implication seems obvious-
this designer was greatly obsessed with being identified! But
nothing in ID theory assumes the designer is obsessed with
being credited for the design.
Furthermore, Chris wouldn't take this as evidence of a non-naturalistic
designer, but I would. A sequence of 20 million base pairs that
serves to code for pi is unlikely to code for biologically functional
material (or at least there is no evidence that it would). Thus, this
sequence would quickly decay as no mutation in this sequence would
be deleterious. If we did indeed find 20 million base pairs that spell
out pi, this would mean the sequence was being preserved by something
other than natural selection. Apart from a non-naturalistic designer,
what does Christ have in mind? Of course, if the sequence did accumulate
mutations so that it no longer perfectly coded for pi, we'd be in
"Bible Code" land trying read a message back into the DNA (and
Chris won't have that).
Now, if the designer is indeed preserving this sequence, this
merely amplifies the extent to which the designer wants to be
credited for the design.
I think any ID theorist who seriously went about looking for
secret messages in a genome would not be acting like a
scientist, but instead, be acting like someone in search of
Big Foot, or worse yet, a numerologist. This is not the road
to travel if one wants ID to become more like science. Chris'
original advice is much better - ID should embrace auxilliary
hypotheses that lead to predictions and implications. Fleshing
out those predictions/implications may not be as sensational
as pi in the genome, but it is likely to be far more fruitful and
intellectually satisfying.
Me:
> For example, intelligent
> design is excluded from science not because it has discredited the notion;
> the question is simply ignored and in the rare cases where it may be
> raised, it is usually pompously and flippantly dismissed.
>
> Remember, science is simply what scientists do.
Chris:
>Really? Scientists get married, have children, eat dinner, etc. Is this all
>science? No, science is not just what scientists do; that definition is
>essentially circular, since then we'd have to define scientists as those who
>do science, which is defined as what scientists do. This same nonsensical
>approach has been used with respect to mathematicians, too, with the same
>illogic.
Hmmm. But it was this very illogic that was at the base of Judge Overton's
opinion in his 1982 ruling in 'McLean vs. Arkansas' If you want to
understand
what science is, as it exists today, you need only observe what scientists
do and how they act. If you want to argue about idealistic notions of
science,
or how it ought to be, consult the philosophers.
Once again:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the
scientist,
as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."
-Scott Todd, Department of Biology, Kansas State University
One can argue all they want if this if how it ought to be, but this
is simply how it is - methodological naturalism *defines* science
as it exists today.
Mike