attached mail follows:
Hi Steve,
Here are some comments from Mike Gene that I believe are insightful on this debate about ID being scientific or unscientific:
The terms "science" and "scientific" seem to have many slippery meanings, so it would depend on what Dave means by "scientific."
Now, above he defines science like this:
My definition of science is pretty much what has been said - it needs to be testable.
If that is the definition behind the term 'scientific,' then I do indeed think ID is scientific. This is because ID can be used to generate testable hypotheses. And this is not just a simple assertion on my part - I have illustrated just how with many examples posted to this forum.
On the other hand, if we are to use DeDuve's definition of science (which rules out any hint of teleology) or Futuyma,'s ("science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry"), or Davies ("the starting point of any scientific investigation must be the assumption that life emerged naturally, via a sequence of normal physical processes"), then ID is not scientific because it violates these game rules. This then leads to the obvious implication as stated by biologist Scott Todd: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science."
Thus, when I claim that ID is not science, I am not saying ID is some untestable, purely subjective, fuzzy-wuzzy outlook on reality. I am simply saying that ID is a teleological perspective. And what's more, since science is unable to address whether it is a teleological or non-teleological cause behind life's origin (for example), scientific conclusions are simply those that follow the starting assumptions that exclude a teleological view. That a scientists thinks life originated from non-life via a sequence of normal physical processes is about as significant as Republicans thinking we should cut taxes or Democrats wanting to expand entitlement programs.
The bottom line is that science cannot process questions about
ID because such processing violates the ground
rules of science. These are not questions within science, they
are questions about science. Now, I do not think this is bad.
Science works quite well with the rules outlined by DeDuve and
Todd, so why mess with them? Of course, the rules mean that the
questions 1) "Was X designed?" and 2) "Did X evolve?" are not
amenable to science. Science asks only "How did X evolve?"
and "How are X,Y, and Z related by evolution?"
Again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, some of my
critics on this board are not bothered by this, just as I suspect
most scientists are not bothered by this (although most scientists
do not study origins). The realization that whether or not
X was designed *or* evolved does not fall within science bothers
only the apologists. On one side, is the spirit of Duane Gish
who wants science to speak of design because he wants to use
the authority of science to convince people there is evidence of
design. On the other side is the spirit of Richard Dawkins, who
wants science to speak of design because he wants to use
the authority of science to convince people there is no evidence
of design. The apologists are the ones who need questions
1 and 2 to be addressed by science as they need an authority
figure, quite influential in our society, to prop up their
metaphysics. People who practice science and/or ID have no
such need.
As I have been explaining for some time now, ID violates the game rules of science, as science is not about coming up with the best explanations, it is about coming up with the best non-teleological explanations. Thus, to publish something about ID would not be publishing something in science, but about science. And scientific journals cannot process such questions. Added to all this is the knee-jerk reaction to ID as a religious view on the part of non-teleologists. I think we see all of these dynamics (and more) at play when Behe's views were banned from the literature. Again, let me make it clear that I don't have any problem with such censorship. Science has decided on the game rules it will obey and that's just how things are. This merely means that as a consequence of the game rules science has chosen, it has lost authority and objectivity on questions concerning whether a teleological or non-teleological explanation is the best explanation. Put simply, if it is true that some biological feature owes its origin to design, science will tell us otherwise.
Let me make it also clear that I am simply drawing out the logical implications of these dynamics (i.e., this is not an attack on science). When it comes to investigating the nature of non-teleological causes, science is very, very good at this. And luckily, even if ID is true at some point, the non-teleological approach will work most of the time. It is simply that science cannot decide whether any cause is teleological or non-teleological in nature. To address such questions, we must consider them in forums such as this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 16:03:21 EDT