Intelligent Design and Evolution

1
Intelligent Design and Evolution

• November 7-10, 2008

2
Distinction
Theistic Evolutionism Atheistic
Evolutionism Creationism/ID
G E O E O G E O
3
Distinction
Theistic Evolutionism Atheistic
Evolutionism Creationism/ID
G E O E O G E O
4
Timeline
1981 Arkansas passes law stating that creation
science be given equal time in public
schools. 1982 This law is repealed by Arkansas
court. 1982 Louisiana passes similar law to
Arkansas. 1987 Louisiana law ruled
unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. 2004
Pennsylvania board of education approves the
following change to curriculum
Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems
in Darwins theory and of other theories of
evolution including, but not limited to,
intelligent design.
5
Timeline
1981 Arkansas passes law stating that creation
science be given equal time in public
schools. 1982 This law is repealed by Arkansas
court. 1982 Louisiana passes similar law to
Arkansas. 1987 Louisiana law ruled
unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. 2004
Pennsylvania board of education approves the
following change to curriculum
2005 District court of Pennsylvania overturns
this change. 2005 Kansas board of education
approves new science standards, criticizing
evolution, and redefining science. 2006
Kansas board members voted out. 2007 Kansass
new standards are repealed.
6
Ruse, on science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

7
Ruse, on creation science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

Creation science does not appeal to laws. To say
that organisms were created is to give up on
explaining them via laws.
8
Ruse, on creation science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

Creation science does not have the capacity to
explain, for instance, homology.
9
Ruse, on creation science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

Creation science does not have the capacity to
explain, for instance, homology.
ID Response? An intelligent designer wanted it to
be the case that animals had similar structural
features. Q Is this too easy? Prediction vs.
Accommodation. Similarity to Just-So Stories
10
Ruse, on creation science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

Creation science is not argued for by attempting
falsification, but by arguing against the theory
of evolution.
11
Ruse, on creation science

• Scientific theories are sets of laws, which
  scientists use to explain and predict.
• Scientific theories are testable.
• Scientists are prepared to change their mind.
  They are tentative.

Creation science is dogmatic, and so
un-scientific.
12
Closing Thought
The ID/Evolution controversy gives an interesting
perspective on some of Kuhns ideas. Proponents
of ID often point to cases that Evolution cannot
account for. These seem to have the form of
counterexamples to the theory of Evolution. And
yet they arent treated as such. Q Why not? Are
they rationally ignored or should they be given
more weight? Q Would scientists take these
counterexamples more seriously if there was a
contender theory that could handle them and the
cases that Evolution handles well?
13
Intelligent Design and Evolution

• November 10, 2008

14
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
15
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
16
Laudan, on creation science
Creation science is not untestable or
unfalsifiable.
Q Are we talking about the theoryor the people
who ascribe to the theory?
17
Thought Experiment
Imagine that Joe the Explorer finds an ancient
text and fervently comes to believe everything
written in it. In part of the text, there is an
account of the evolution of species via natural
selection. Joe is so taken by his belief in this
ancient texts infallibility that he writes down
the theory and says that we should teach it to
children in schools.
Q Is this the same as saying that we should
teach Darwins theory to children in schools? Q
Is the reason we dont teach Joes theory because
it isnt a scientific theory, or because of
something else? QWho is going to vet all the
testable theories if all we care about is their
content?
18
Important Distinction
CONTENT DEMARCATION What makes a theory
scientific concerns the content of the theory,
e.g., what it says. PROCESS DEMARCATION What
makes a theory scientific is how the theory was
arrived at, and the testing that the theory is
subjected to, e.g., the process of formulation
and refinement.
19
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
20
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
21
Laudan, on creation science
Creation science is dogmatic, but so is
science Conservation of Energy Newtons claim
that there are forces in the world The
Uncertainty Principle
Q Is there a difference between this dogmatism
and Creationist dogmatism?
22
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
23
Laudan
The decision cites two main features of
science 1. Science is concerned with laws for
explanation. 2. Science is fallible,
tentative, and testable.
24
Laudan, on science
Science isnt only concerned with explanation via
laws.
Distinction establishing the existence of a
phenomenon v. explaining the phenomenon with
laws
Our ultimate goal, no doubt, is to do both. But
to suggest, as the McLean Opinion does
repeatedly, that an existence claim (e.g., there
was a worldwide flood) is unscientific until we
have found the laws on which the alleged
phenomenon depends is simply outrageous. (p. 18)
25
Ruses General Response
Clearly Scientific The explanation of Ruses
son having blue eyes by appeal to Mendels
Laws. Clearly Nonscientific The Catholic
doctrine of transubstantiation.
26
Ruses Response

• Clearly Scientific The claim that Mendels Laws
  explain the traits of offspring.
• Clearly Nonscientific The claim that the bread
  and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.
• The difference here is falsifiability.
• But isnt creation science falisfiable?

27
Ruses Response on Science and Laws
Old Claim scientific theories must explain via
laws. New Claim scientific theories do not
appeal to the breaking of laws.
Q Is it true that a scientific theory cannot
appeal to the breaking of its own laws? Q Is it
true that a scientific theory cannot appeal to
the breaking of another scientific theorys laws?
28
Ruses Response on Science and Laws
Gill (creationist) We cannot discover by
scientific investigations anything about the
creative processes used by the Creator.
Standard QM The more precisely the position
(momentum) of a particle is given, the less
precisely can one say what its momentum
(position) is.
29
Ruses Response on Science and Dogmatism
Thought Example Suppose there was a Newtonian
Research Society in the early 1700s. To become a
member you had to sign a document indicating that
you would do your research with firm conviction
in Newtons laws of motion. You are not allowed
to question these basic laws. Would the work by
the NRS be scientific? What if we switch this
to the Einsteinian Research Society?