Title: Science, Intelligent Design Metaphysics, and Methodology
1Science, Intelligent Design Metaphysics, and
Methodology
John Wickham Earth Environmental Science
University of Texas at Arlington
2Summary
- Attacks on evolution are about metaphysics and
religion, not science. - Scientists are partly responsible for the
controversy because many have conflated
methodology with metaphysics especially with
respect to evolution. - Science needs to emphasize its methodology and
remain neutral in the metaphysical debate. - Intelligent Design hypothesis is flawed.
3Design Advocate?
- Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an
inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real
thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really
bring us closer to the secret of the 'Old One.'
I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not
playing at dice. - A. Einstein, 1929
4Design Theorist?
- I am an empiricist. On religion, I lean toward
deism but consider its proof largely a problem in
astrophysics. The existence of a cosmological God
who created the universe is possible, and may
eventually be settled, perhaps by forms of
material evidence not yet imagined - E.O. Wilson, 1998, p. 263
5Evolution as metaphysics
Teleological assertions by scientists have been
repeated since the time of Darwin. G. Simpson
(1951) is typical
- It is adaptation that gives an appearance of
purpose-fullness in evolution. It turns out to
be basically materialistic with no sign of
purpose as a working variable in life history.
6Evolution as Metaphysics
- Cardinal Schönborn
- Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might
be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense
an unguided, unplanned process of random
variation and natural selection is not. Any
system of thought that seeks to explain away the
overwhelming evidence for design in biology is
ideology, not science. - (NY Times July 7, 2005)
7Evolution as metaphysics
- The very persons who insist upon keeping
science and religion separate are eager to use
their science as a basis for pronouncements about
religion. The literature of Darwinism is full of
anti-theistic conclusions, such as that the
universe was not designed and has no purpose, and
that humans are the product of blind natural
processes that care nothing about us. (P.
Johnson, 1993, p. 8).
8Evolution as metaphysics
- These attacks by the religious right claim that
evolution is based on metaphysics, that there is
no real distinction between metaphysics and
methodology, and that scientists teach
metaphysics as part of evolution. - They have already won the public relations fight,
and 2/3 of the American public agrees that
intelligent design should be taught along with
evolution.
9Evolution as metaphysics
- Science as a method does not have to, and should
not make metaphysical claims. - Science excludes appeal to supernatural entities
as a point of method, and thus it is improper to
draw the atheistic conclusion that God is
unreal from evolution or any other scientific
conclusion. Such questions are not scientific and
must be left to the theologian and the
philosopher. - Pennock (1999)
10What is Intelligent Design?
- Intelligent design is a hypothesis which claims
that some biological features are complex,
improbable and specified, and they therefore must
be designed, - Intelligent Design claims it is based on
probability theory, hypothesis testing, and
information theory, but little use is actually
made of these theories.
11Intelligent Design
- Intelligent Design could be considered science by
Karl Poppers definition - It proposes a model and method which can be
analyzed for consistency. - It makes general claims which can be falsified.
- Thornton, S., 2005
12Intelligent Design Hypothesis
- ID is based on specification and irreducible
complexity - Specification is related to statistical
hypothesis testing defining a population, a
sample and a rejection region to determine
whether the sample is part of the population at
some confidence level. (Dembski, 1998, p. 97)
13Intelligent Design Hypothesis
- The population consists of the characteristics of
natural systems, and the sample is the
characteristics of the proposed designed system.
The characteristics of the proposed designed
feature are called its specification and
complexity. - If the sample is in the rejection region, then it
is not part of natural systems and it has been
therefore designed.
14Intelligent Design
- The Explanatory Filter (Dembski, 2004)
summarizes these concepts. - Contingent means the feature is the result of a
stochastic process (not deterministic) - Complex means it is improbable
- Specified means that we know in advance what the
improbable feature must be like.
15Intelligent Design Specification
- ID proponents try to get around having to specify
the characteristics of a designers product by
claiming that irreducible complexity is
specified and that nature could not generate it
(i.e. its a miracle) it is therefore designed.
16Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity
- Irreducible refers to a system consisting of
parts which have no function by themselves. If
any of those parts are missing, the system cannot
operate. - Complex means that it is improbable.
- The claim is made that irreducible complexity is
specified in the statistical sense, is outside
the probability distribution of natural systems,
and therefore it must be intelligently designed.
17Intelligent Design Problems
- There are at least three somewhat related
problems with the model - Biologists claim that irreducible complexity is
only apparent. Evolution can produce structures
that have no apparent function or are used for
some other function and then later incorporated
into a new system.
18Intelligent Design Problems
- The second and third problems are similar
- The feature to be tested for design must come
from a population whose characteristics are known
(complex and specified). We cannot specify the
design characteristics of a non-human
intelligence, let alone a supernatural one,
without first making empirical connections
between objects and the designer.
19Intelligent Design Problems
- Any scientific causal agent needs to be defined
and independently verified in some way, and the
intelligent designer is not. For example did it
have mass and evolve naturally (the UFO
perpetrators perhaps?), or is it a force or
energy field perhaps dark energy or entropy. - If the intelligent designer and its products
cannot be defined (specified) the hypothesis is
useless. There is no reason to believe that
irreducible complexity is specified in that sense.
20Intelligent Design Problems
- This point is actually made by Dembski (2004)
when he criticizes bubble universes and the many
world interpretation of quantum mechanics - What is important is that none of them bubble
universes possesses independent evidence for the
existence of the entity or process proposed.
The demand for independent evidence is a
necessary constraint on theory construction in
science, so that theory construction does not
degenerate into total free play of the mind.
The design Revolution, 2004, p. 119 - What is important is that none of them
Intelligent Designers possesses independent
evidence for the existence of the entity or
process proposed.
21Conclusions
- The methods of science can determine neither the
presence nor absence of the supernatural, design,
purpose or meaning in nature. - Scientists should remain neutral and agnostic in
the metaphysical debates unless they make it
clear they are speaking as philosophers. - Intelligent design theory is fatally flawed
There is no known way to discover design without
empirically connecting objects with a designer
that can be defined and identified in some way. - Science has lost the PR battle. The NAS should
put together a curricula that can be used in
public schools showing that ID is bad science.
22References
- Thornton, Stephen, "Karl Popper", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL http//plato.stanford.edu/ar
chives/sum2005/entries/popper/. - Dawkins, R.., 1986, The Blind Watchmaker Why the
Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without
Design, Norton, 322p. - Dembski, W.A., 1998, Redesigning Science, in
Dembski, W.A. ed. Mere Creation, p. 93-122,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. - Dembski, W.A., 2004, The Design Revolution,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. - Johnson, P., 1993, Darwin on Trial InterVarsity
Press, Downers Grove, Ill. - Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel the evidence
against the new creationism Bradford/MIT Press,
Cambridge MA - Simpson, G. G., 1951 The Meaning of Evolution
Yale Uni. Press, New Haven - Wilson, E.O., 1998, Consilience Alfred S. Knopf,
New York