"The Woodstock of Evolution"--Second Pass

A recent Scientific American article raises a number of objections against Intelligent Design; among them, that it has no real scientific theory or research agenda in process. This is contestable: Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are foundations for solid research programs. There is a natural limit to the kind of scientific theory ID can propose, because it's impossible to predict the specific actions of any individual, especially one as Other as any Designer must be. ID proponents should stand comfortably with those limits, and define the boundaries of their scientific agenda accordingly.

Michael Shermer's article on the great evolution world summit continues:

As I also demonstrated in my talk, IDers are disingenuous about their "science." They are not doing science and they know it. To wit:

"Because of ID's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind." --William Dembski, "Research and Progress in Intelligent Design," 2002 conference on Intelligent Design

"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." --Dr. Paul Nelson. "The Measure of Design." Touchstone magazine, 2004.

This is picking and choosing one's quotes, of course, and it ignores significant progress since 2002. I've had opportunity in the past to discuss the status of ID as a theory, with considerable dialogue following in the comments.

It's a good time, though, to add an interesting twist to add to the concept of an Intelligent Design theory. Let me preface it by emphasizing I do not believe ID is incapable of generating and following scientific theory. The twist is this: is it conceptually possible even to propose a complete "scientific" theory of how an Intelligent Designer would work?

ID opponents often assume it should be, saying things like, "A really intelligent designer wouldn't have designed people with an appendix, or men with nipples." They're extrapolating very dangerously when they make statements like that. Is it safe to assume we would know so much of this Designer's attributes and methods?

If we approach the ID question purely from an empirical perspective (apart from any self-revelation the theorized Designer might have provided), then we can propose little more than that the Designer possesses creativity, power, knowledge, and will--all of which are attributes of personality. If there's one thing we know from the behavioral sciences about personality, it is that it is impossible to predict one person's behavior consistently. The behavioral sciences conduct research primarily through aggregation, measuring tendencies of large groups of people. Predictability of behavior trends in any one group (e.g., what sorts of people will members of this group prefer as friends?) rarely exceeds 15% to 25% (r squared, in the typical correlational/regression research methodologies). Prediction of any one decision (who will be Emily's closest friend in her new school?) is far more dicey.

Now, this is prediction among a familiar and large population. If ID is true, then the Designer must be treated (by Occam's Razor) as only One, and the Designer is also totally Other than we are.

Thus we reach a limit to scientific theorizing in ID. To think we could make valid, empirically testable (falsifiable) predictions of such a Designer's specific actions and methods, apart from the assistance of revelation*, is far too optimistic. It's inherently impossible, regardless of one's view of what kind of God (or god) might be behind all of this design. Therefore a merely scientific theory of design must have gaps in it.

A thoroughly scientific theory of origins is not possible within ID. Does that mean that ID is doomed from the start? Only if:

⁃ a) We insist that only "scientific" knowledge is true knowledge

⁃ b) We insist that ID present a complete theory (with no gaps) in the realm of empirically observable nature

Proposition a) once held sway in the form of positivism; it is now widely repudiated except by some who are decades behind on their epistemology. As to proposition b), ID can present a partial theory: it can (potentially) show that there are aspects of nature that are completely unexplainable by means of any merely naturalistic theory. This would establish the necessity of a designer. That ought to be all we ask of it. Let other fields of knowledge pick up where science must leave off.

Dembski and Behe are on the right track, pursuing Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity. Paul Nelson may be needlessly apologetic in the quote above: we don't need a general theory of biological design, if by that he means empirically testable predictions about what a Designer would do. (That's based on the admittedly questionable assumption that Shermer's quote represented Nelson in a proper context.)

*I'm using "revelation" here as a catch-all term for any valid source of knowledge about the Designer's activities apart from what is discoverable empirically in nature.

Posted: Mon - July 4, 2005 at 08:26 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

"The Woodstock of Evolution"--Second Pass

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson