ID and Neo-Darwinism: Philosophy, Science, Or Both?
Father Jonathan Morris' has a blog post on Intelligent Design this morning which I think is helpful in framing the issues involved with understanding the relationship of ID, Neo-Darwinism, and the scientific method. His claim is that both Neo-Darwinism and ID should both be viewed as philosophy rather than science. I made similar points in a post called Darwin the Philosopher:
To say ID is strict science is incorrect, just as it is to say that Neo-Darwinism is strict science. It, too, is philosophy of science, but again, it is part of the scientific process. I've included a pretty lengthy excerpt from Morris' post, but there is more good points made, so I encourage you to check it out in its entirety.
I am amused when Darwinists make the claim that Intelligent Design is not science because it cannot be proven, especially when Darwinism is based on philosophical naturalism rather than on real, empirical evidence. In spite of the fact that so much of what has been promoted as evidence for Darwinism has been publically debunked, they continue to recite the same old arguments. OK, boys and girls, one more time together: Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy...stop trying to pawn it off as something that it is not.The only difference is that Fr Morris completely divides ID theory and modern science, calling one philosophy and the other science. I simply call ID and Neo-Darwinism philosophy of science (which is what they are). One cannot strictly divide science and philosophy, as Morris proposes by "sending it down the hall", due to the fact that once one has followed the evidence where it leads, there must then be hypotheses developed or proposed to explain that data. That's what Darwinism is and that's what ID is.
To say ID is strict science is incorrect, just as it is to say that Neo-Darwinism is strict science. It, too, is philosophy of science, but again, it is part of the scientific process. I've included a pretty lengthy excerpt from Morris' post, but there is more good points made, so I encourage you to check it out in its entirety.
"Let’s agree on what we mean by modern science and what we mean by intelligent design. Unlike thinkers of ages past, who intertwined gracefully some elements of philosophy with the natural sciences, today we prefer — for reasons of method — to separate one from the other. In these categories, the competence of modern science accepts only what we can observe and measure (empirical evidence). Questions like, “What’s the essence of it?” and “What’s it for?” are sent down the hall to the philosophy department. And that’s fair.Perhaps a proper categorization would not completely end the debates, but it would at least re-frame them so that there could be a consideration of the two on their merits as describing and defining the data that has been discovered. At the very least, the claims that one or the other is not real science could be eliminated, paving the way to allowing both philosophies of science to be considered in the classroom. That may never happen, though, since putting them toe-to-toe is the last thing a Neo-Darwinist ever wants to see happen.
Intelligent design theory asks just that type of “down the hall” question. Its proponents claim that a good scientist can’t look at the complexity of the human eye without asking himself, “How did that happen?,” and responding with the answer, “I don’t know, but I do know that it didn’t just happen; there must be intelligence behind that design.” The affirmation is quite logical, but the evidence would be philosophical, not empirical, and for that reason it belongs down the hall.
You would think this reasonable principle would be valid for everyone. Not so. Judge Jones wrote that ID was “a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.” An alternative to what? Ask your children or grandchildren what they are taught in their public school about the origin of human beings. They may say “evolution,” but it’s more than that. They are being taught a very unscientific theory called Neo-Darwinism, the belief that there is NO purpose or intelligence behind life forms, that it’s all random. Where’s the empirical evidence for that? As a matter of fact, it’s impossible to prove, either scientifically or otherwise. It too should go down the hall.
'Father, are you saying that evolution is not true?' Nope. I’m saying that mainstream, atheistic, Neo-Darwinism is bad science because it isn’t science."
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 2/16/2006 08:00:00 AM
|
1 Comments:
I am a traditional Christian (of the Southern Baptist persuasion) and I have made my living as an academic biomedical researcher for over 20 years. As a working scientist I am always amused by confident statements such as one cited in your blog that everyone knows that neo-Darwinism has been debunked. Well, I must not be anyone, because the evidence has only become stronger in the 20 years that I have been watching this. I could give you lots of examples, but for the sake of brevity I will tell you about my post-doctoral mentor J. Claude Bennett's work. One of the best ways to test a scientific theory is to use it to make predictions and then determine if those predictions are correct. Dr. Bennett used evoluationary theory to reason that antibody molecules could not be coded for by one gene, because they mostly differ from each other on one end and are almost all exactly the same on the other end of the protein. If the gene is the unit of natural selection, variation should be similar at both ends. He suggested, on the basis of this reasoning, that antibody molecules are coded for by gene segments that are inherited as separate segments but which are joined during development of the cells that make antibodies to form an intact gene. He proposed this idea 10 years before methods were available to determine if he was correct. When the methods became avaialable it was instantly demonstrated that his theory was correct (the person who did this won the Nobel Prize and poor Dr. Bennett was left out in the cold). Thus, neo-darwinism is a pretty good scientific theory. If you doubt me, you should check out published interviews with Dr. Francis Collins, an outspoken Christian and Director of the Human Genome Project. He can tell you that DNA sequence data are remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.
Let me clarify something here. The apparent assumption by scientists that everything has a naturalistic explanation is not based on the fact that all scientists are atheists. In fact, many scientists make no such assumption at all. However, almost all of us recognize that the only explanations that are amenable to study by the methods of science are naturalistic explanations. So all of us, when we are working as scientists, assume that that which we are studying has a naturalistic explanation. Before you, my non-scientists religious friends, get too critical of that perspective, I would like to suggest that have it too. You do not step out in front of oncoming cars assuming that God will circumvent the laws of physics to rescue you. You assume in virtually all of your daily physical activities that the world operates by naturalistic laws. I can believe that God occasionally counteracts or suspends these laws, but I cannot base my scientific work on that belief or it ceases to be science and the methods of science will not be useful.
In contrast to evolution, which could be refuted if certain evidence was found, and which has provided a framework for accurate predictions (as noted above), Intelligent Design cannot be refuted regardless of the evidence. One could always propose that the designer planted the evidence as a test and that it cannot be trusted. Also, I have not been able to identify any scientific predictions that can be made based on intelligent design theory. The observations of Behe in his early scientific publications were scientific, and scientists would likely have entertained the idea of irreducible complexity (which is the basis of ID) as a valid scientific hypothesis that could be investigated. However, once one proposes a designer who is beyond nature or who is so able to control nature that he could create life, the key question becomes the defining and characterizing the designer. If you think for a while about this, you will realize that there are no scientific experiments or observations and inferences that can accomplish this. Thus, it really is not science.
I am a biblical inerrantist, and I am convinced that the substantial differences in the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are not accidental or mistaken. I believe they are intended as an indication that these accounts are not intended to be scientifically accurate or informative. One or the other is probably historically accurate in a sense, but I believe they are intended to express spiritual truths and the physical truth that God created. The fact that different sequences of events occur in Genesis 1 and 2 and that plants grow without the sun (which was known to be impossible even in biblical times) give about as strong a hint as possible that this is not intended to be science.
One last thought. I would like to ask you to consider the possibility that fighting evolution does the cause of Christ more harm than good. The rationale I have heard for this fight is that evolutionism promotes an atheistic world view and undermines faith in our culture. However, reliable sociological and polling data have shown repeatedly that faith in God and the percentage of people who self-identify as Christian in the U.S. has been very consistent (and very high) for many years. Thus, there is no evidence that accepting evolution (as a scientific theory, not as a theological position) is associated with diminished faith. In contrast, I have personal knowledge of many colleagues who I believe would be receptive to the gospel except that they equate evangelical Christianity with anti-evolution extremism and they want no part of any of it. The idea that one cannot really believe the Bible and accept evoluation as useful scientific theory (in the provisional way that all scientific theories should be accepted or not) seems untenable to me.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home