"Why ID Is a Threat to Science" (?)

The Journal of Clinical Investigation has published an article by a long list of authors including several familiar ID opponents,* entitled "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action." A call to action it is indeed. It starts with a doubtful history of the ID movement as they understand it, and closes with about two pages of specific steps for scientists to take to meet this "threat." I focus here on three paragraphs that seem to stand at the core of their argument: "Why ID is a threat to science." The section begins,

"The constant, unanswered assault on evolution is harmful to science and science education."

You may get a wry chuckle, as I did, out of "unanswered" being included in there. But are they right that this threatens science and science education?

"ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Yet all of science education and practice rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces." Teaching our students otherwise disables the very critical thinking they must have in order to be scientists and is a fundamental distortion of the scientific process. ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself."

One could respond, and it would be true, that ID does not rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. ID, qua science, takes the right stance of humility, saying it will go no further in its conclusions than science can take it. ID theorists are willing to make an inference to what seems to be the best explanation for design. In every other known instance, design involves intelligence. These theorists know that to speculate on the nature of that intelligence takes them out of their field as scientists. If intentional design in nature is solidly demonstrated, ID, qua science, will be able to say nothing more than that it has done that.

(As an aside, it is ID opponents who uniformly want to jump categories and make extra-scientific assumptions about what ID would mean if intelligently-directed design were demonstrated. ID theorists have learned the discipline of staying in the realm of science. It's terribly ironic that they are the ones accused of being non-scientific.)

A more glaring error yet is the article's alternative suggestion for how explanations should be sought. "All of science . . . rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces." Just as a thought experiment, what if intentional, intelligent design were to be found by ID scientists, and the philosophers and theologians were to agree that something supernatural had been discovered thereby. What kind of pickle would that leave this article's authors in?

"But-- but-- " you can almost hear them sputtering, "that's preposterous!" It's preposterous only if you know in advance that it's the wrong answer. What if it's true? We don't need to insist here that it is true; we only need to note that this method rules out the possibility in advance of the investigation, arrogantly ascribing to itself all possible knowledge even when its only competence is in physical/material knowledge. It decides that a whole class of potential explanations is unexplorable, and therefore they don't exist.

Thus when they say this,

"all of science ... rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces"

they rule out, without adequate evidence, the possibility that there exist phenomena that don't fit that neat pattern. They complain, by the way, that ID is not falsifiable--yet they have set their own rules up to be non-falsifiable. If there are phenomena or explanations outside the realm usually examined by science, they cannot discover it. They say there is no such realm. They guarantee that no exceptions to that principle can be found, because they will not permit the investigation. Neat trick.

This is familiar; it is territory often covered in debates of this sort. I'm most concerned over the conclusion they draw from it:

"Teaching our students otherwise disables the very critical thinking they must have in order to be scientists .... ID ... is an assault on science itself."

Two dangerous assumptions lie hidden here. One has to do with the kind of critical thinking they espouse, and the other is the implication that ID eschews critical thinking. Consider the first. It is somewhat on solid ground: good science relies on looking for natural, reproducible, testable explanations (there are exceptions, as any student of the demarcation problem knows, but they are not relevant here). Unfortunately, they are not content with it being true as far as it goes. Somehow it seems that these authors have arrogated critical thinking to science alone. This displays a horrific ignorance of the kind of discussion that constantly occurs in other fields like law, history, philosophy, even theology.

Do you want to see critical thinking? You can find it in a host of other places besides science. Do you want to see opposition to critical thinking? Stand up and suggest that we ought to consider the possibility that there's more to origins of life than meets the eyes. (Wait, no, cancel that. The "constant assault" on evolution is "unanswered." That's what they said, anyway. If you believe that, then I have a real estate deal for you... )

It's sadly laughable to suggest that ID stands in the way of scientific critical thinking. Everyone doing ID work knows that they are the scientific underdogs. Think of sports teams. Underdogs can give up (ID has not done that!) or they can dig in and try to play better and better. For ID that means working hard on both the science and the philosophy that accompanies it, and it means working under intense assault. Just what is it about working under such conditions that is thought to allow people to go soft on critical thinking? Moreover, ID is more open-minded in its search for explanation, for it does not rule out a whole class of possible phenomena a priori.

Even more outrageous and laughable is the claim that ID seeks to undermine science education. Every major ID theorist says that it is not now time to teach ID in public schools, because the theory is not ready for that step. The encouragement is to teach evolution more completely, including some of its evidential and conceptual difficulties. Is that a way to inhibit critical thinking?

The third paragraph of this section blames Intelligent Design for disagreements on the Big Bang theory, the eventual heat death of the universe, and global warming. Would someone please read what ID theorists say instead of assuming they know? Most ID theorists agree with the Big Bang, the heat death of the universe has never shown up in any ID-related document I've ever seen, and ID has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. There's a manufactured, specious connection being raised here between views that have no intellectual connection. Yet these authors say this shows that ID is to blame for "interfering with the free flow of scientific information."

I raise my small voice here to interfere quite intentionally with the all-too-free flow of patent misinformation.

*The authors are Alan D. Attie, Elliott Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, Richard M. Amasino, Terese Berceau, Thomas Powell, and Michael M. Cox. My apologies to the web source that led me to this article; I've lost track of where I found it so I cannot credit you properly.

Posted: Fri - July 21, 2006 at 08:32 AM |

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

"Why ID Is a Threat to Science" (?)

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson