Thinking Christian

Update inserted at 5:45 pm, August 1:

There is a group I call “the loyal opposition” who have frequently disagreed with me and other Christians writing here. Of that group, my logs indicate that David Ellis, Ordinary Seeker, Tom Clark, Jacob, Tony Hoffman, and doctor(logic) have visited this blog since I posted this entry. All of them except possibly doctor(logic) visited this entry or the main page which includes it.

It’s fascinating what they have found to criticize here—and what they have not found to criticize. The only complaint that was raised was an irrelevant one, having to do with how accurate it is to say the majority of ID proponents are theists. Jacob had an additional note to add to the discussion, but I don’t think it really amounted to a disagreement. (Bobxxx’s rant was too crazy too count.)

No other dispute has been offered. Considering the post is about “why Intelligent Design is essential to mainstream biology,” I find that very interesting.

There is no such thing as purely objective scientific research. It is always conditioned by culture, and thus it is always going to have biases. Its best defense against culturally-conditioned bias is a combination of good philosophical work, honesty in research and reporting (a moral dimension), and cross-cultural challenges to test the reigning cultural biases. These challenges may come through work done by others with different philosophical starting points, and they also come by the passage of time, for cultures change over time.

Evolutionary science is strongly associated with agnosticism or atheism. More than eighty percent of evolutionary biologists hold those positions. Wherever there exists a monolithic mindset of that sort, there is the danger that it will lead to badly skewed interpretations of reality. This is a simple and widely agreed fact of human nature.

Biologists often complain that ID is strongly influenced by theism, for the majority of ID proponents are theists. This must be acknowledged: ID researchers are typically biased toward theism, and universally biased against philosophical naturalism.

To be biased is not necessarily to be wrong. Either there is a theistic God or there isn’t; either philosophical naturalism is true or it isn’t. One side or the other has a more nearly correct view of reality. Each side naturally thinks its own is the one. Good philosophical work can (idealistically) help determine which is which; more realistically, it can at least contribute to understanding how to correct for biases. Even with that work being done, though, each side is still likely to emphasize interpretations and findings that support its own preferred view of reality.

Culturally aware mainstream biologists therefore ought to be encouraging work on intelligent design, just because it might prove to be a corrective to their monolithically shared view of reality.

Let me re-state that in plainer English, and the difficulty with it will become clear. Mainstream biologists ought to recognize that they have biases, and because of those biases they might be wrong. They ought to welcome work by people with opposing views of reality, because there is a chance they will be successfully corrected in case they are wrong. The difficulty with acknowledging one has biases is that it means admitting one might be wrong.

I have directed this advice specifically toward mainstream biologists, not because I think ID proponents have no biases, but because I don’t know of a single ID proponent who says evolutionary science should be discouraged from moving forward. ID is not standing in the way of this cultural correction process. Mainstream biology is. The dominant culture is always the one that needs the most reminding that it is not necessarily right. This too is a widely recognized fact of human nature.

This applies to the question of origins more than to any other science, because in most other sciences, direct contact with experimental results provides strong corrective power. This is not so for historical sciences. Archaeologists may interpret a certain pattern of artifacts as having religious or sexual significance, but if their view is mistaken because of cultural conditioning, the dead will not rise and tell them their prejudices have led them astray. The science of origins is the ultimate in historical sciences. Correction to biases will not come by watching the universe, or life, or the various species appearing anew all over again. It will come through good philosophical work, a commitment to honesty in research and reporting, and cross-cultural challenges.

Such challenges also come through the progress of time, as I’ve already said. It is very difficult to give up our usual ways of looking at things, but time has a way of helping make that happen, in cultures if not always in individuals. Discovering truth is partly a matter of patience as the work proceeds, and partly a matter of holding somewhat loosely to our scientific conclusions, especially those that cannot be tested by experiment. If the goal is to reach truth more quickly, the best way to speed the process is to encourage respectful confrontations between research programs with differing cultural starting points. If biology includes a search for what is really true about origins, biologists ought to be encouraging work on intelligent design.

Tweet This Post