Why Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Hypothesis
The following is my summary of a lecture by Steven Goldman, a professor at Lehigh University who specializes in the philosophy of science. (Available from the Teaching Company as part of the lecture series "Science Wars.") I thought his lecture was so well done that it was worth posting his points here.
1. Who determines whether any hypothesis is "scientific"?
The determination is rightfully made by the community of people who do science, i.e., scientists.
2. What criteria do scientists use in determining whether a proposed hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis?
Scientists expect a hypothesis to have (i) explanatory power, (ii) logical consistency within a given set of assumptions, (iii) correlation with present experience, and (iv) correlation between the consequences of the hypothesis and predicted future experiences.
3. How does the intelligent-design (ID) hypothesis fare under the foregoing tests?
- a. It lacks explanatory power because it goes outside nature for its explanation, invoking a supernatural causal agent. One of the foundational rules of science as a disciplined approach to the study of nature is that nature must be treated as a closed system. (Even medieval Catholic philosophers accepted this proposition.)
- b. It does not make any testable predictions that would not also be made by someone who did not accept the intelligent-design hypothesis. Thus, it does not make a difference operationally -- it is not fertile in terms of research programs.
4. What support is offered for the proposition that ID is a scientific hypothesis?
- a. That "Darwinian" evolution cannot explain certain things.
- Comeback: This argument is based on a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance. The fact that theory X cannot explain something tells us nothing about theory Y; it only tells us about theory X.
- b. That "Darwinian" evolution specifically cannot explain the existence of the complex biochemical systems that are characteristic of life forms.
- Comeback 1: Evolutionary theory is more than "Darwinian" evolution. The theory continues to develop, as all "good" scientific theories do.
- Comeback 2: A new science of self-organizing systems has arisen since the 1970s that is a more promising scientific basis for explaining the emergence of complex biological systems than jumping to the ID hypothesis.
- Comeback 3: There is evidence that complex socio-technical systems have in fact emerged from the bottom up. For example, the automobile engine, which is the result of discoveries & inventions in unrelated areas for unrelated purposes.
5. Attempts to discredit evolution as a scientific theory reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories and of scientific knowledge. Scientific theories evolve over time, and all major scientific theories evolve multidimensionally, becoming integrated into an expanding explanatory web driven by correlated research programs. Evolutionary theory displays precisely this characteristic, with its developing correlation with genetic theory, molecular biology, anthropology, ecology, environmental science, and plate tectonic geology.
The following is my summary of a lecture by Steven Goldman, a professor at Lehigh University who specializes in the philosophy of science. (Available from the Teaching Company as part of the lecture series "Science Wars.") I thought his lecture was so well done that it was worth posting his points here.
1. Who determines whether any hypothesis is "scientific"?
The determination is rightfully made by the community of people who do science, i.e., scientists.
2. What criteria do scientists use in determining whether a proposed hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis?
Scientists expect a hypothesis to have (i) explanatory power, (ii) logical consistency within a given set of assumptions, (iii) correlation with present experience, and (iv) correlation between the consequences of the hypothesis and predicted future experiences.
3. How does the intelligent-design (ID) hypothesis fare under the foregoing tests?
- a. It lacks explanatory power because it goes outside nature for its explanation, invoking a supernatural causal agent. One of the foundational rules of science as a disciplined approach to the study of nature is that nature must be treated as a closed system. (Even medieval Catholic philosophers accepted this proposition.)
- b. It does not make any testable predictions that would not also be made by someone who did not accept the intelligent-design hypothesis. Thus, it does not make a difference operationally -- it is not fertile in terms of research programs.
4. What support is offered for the proposition that ID is a scientific hypothesis?
- a. That "Darwinian" evolution cannot explain certain things.
- Comeback: This argument is based on a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance. The fact that theory X cannot explain something tells us nothing about theory Y; it only tells us about theory X.
- b. That "Darwinian" evolution specifically cannot explain the existence of the complex biochemical systems that are characteristic of life forms.
- Comeback 1: Evolutionary theory is more than "Darwinian" evolution. The theory continues to develop, as all "good" scientific theories do.
- Comeback 2: A new science of self-organizing systems has arisen since the 1970s that is a more promising scientific basis for explaining the emergence of complex biological systems than jumping to the ID hypothesis.
- Comeback 3: There is evidence that complex socio-technical systems have in fact emerged from the bottom up. For example, the automobile engine, which is the result of discoveries & inventions in unrelated areas for unrelated purposes.
5. Attempts to discredit evolution as a scientific theory reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories and of scientific knowledge. Scientific theories evolve over time, and all major scientific theories evolve multidimensionally, becoming integrated into an expanding explanatory web driven by correlated research programs. Evolutionary theory displays precisely this characteristic, with its developing correlation with genetic theory, molecular biology, anthropology, ecology, environmental science, and plate tectonic geology.
posted by iohannes | 1:16 PM
<< Home