"Intelligent design" as explicit attack on "naturalism" in science

[struggle4progress]

Modern science is a philosophical method insisting upon naturalistic evidence and argument, hence early name "natural philosophy."

When people attempt to discuss "intelligent design" claims, they often overlook the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" really hope to redefine science by eliminating the requirements of naturalism.

Here is a LTTE of The Post (a student newspaper at Ohio University) from the executive director of "Intelligent Design Network of Ohio," which explicitly make clear this objective:

<snip> Unfortunately, when it comes to origins science the scientific method, which encourages any hypothesis based on the evidence, has been short-circuited by the philosophical requirement that only "natural" causes can be considered. Darwinists "know" design is not true design because it cannot be, according to the philosophy of naturalism - that all nature can be explained solely as the result of natural cause and effect. Therefore, design is apparent design because it must be by definition. But again, what if Darwinists are wrong in their assumption of naturalism? <snip> - Roddy M. Bullock
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E3&date=101405


IMO, the proper retort to "intelligent design" proponants is that science, by definition, involves only naturalistic evidence and argument, and that to qualify as scientific inquiry "intelligent design research" would similarly need to restrict itself to naturalistic evidence and argument.

Such a retort has the advantage of clearly distinguishing scientific questions and methods from all other philosophical questions and methods.

Moreover, the retort can be made without committing to any particular stand on the full range of philosophical techniques useful for discerning abstract "truth": one can say, "science is naturalistic" and "if 'intelligent design' is not naturalistic, then 'intelligent design' is not science" without making sweeping claims (for example) that science is the only road to any "truth."

In this way, one can avoid the murky, emotional side discussions underlying the political organizing objectives of certain "intelligent design" proponants ...

[electropop]

1. Yeah, science is closed-minded in that way.

It's so unfair that scientists will only accept facts backed by evidence when they form their theories. They need to get beyond that. :sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

9. There are all kinds of "facts" and "evidence." Mathematicians (for ..

.. example) make claims like the so-called Banach-Tarski paradox: "A sphere can be cut into two congruent nonmeasurable sets, each of which can be reassembled by translation and rotation into a sphere of the same size as the original."

Many mathematicians are well-prepared to support such a claim; in particular, its supporters will insist (with cause) that the assertion is true and that it asserts a real fact.

Such a fact, of course, is not naturalistic and is not supported by naturalistic argument.

The point is not that "scientists .. only accept facts backed by evidence" but rather that "scientists only accept naturalistic facts backed by naturalistic evidence" ...

[OldCurmudgeon]

25. mathematics != science

In mathematics, you can make all kinds of hair-brained assumptions, as long as you state them clearly. Then it's off you go to prove theorems that result from those assumptions. And yes, "belief" is what one has about those assumptions (postulates), since there's no way _mathematically_ of addressing the truth or falsity of assumptions.

In science, all that is trumped by what the Universe actually *does*. So all assumptions are on the table, subject to testing, and can fail; some _have_ failed, even what would seem to be extremely basic and fundamental assumptions (an absolute frame of reference, for example; or mirror-symmetry in physical laws).

Speaking scientifically, "facts" == "well founded observations": the 'raw data' of science; they most emphatically are NOT the theorizing of some mathematician. Now kindly point out some 'non-naturalistic facts backed by non-naturalistic evidence'.

[donco6]

2. And yet, the Kansas board of ed

moved to strike that very though from their definition of "science":

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequateexplanations of natural phenomena. Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Items in Italics have been struck from the definition. See what happens? And this language I'm sure was hammered out by the ID folks who have infiltrated the board.

[struggle4progress]

8. Thanks. I had missed this important example, which helps ..

.. make the case ...

[bemildred]

3. There is no evidence of "design", in any form. nt

[struggle4progress]

10. The problem with philosophical argument is often that ..

.. such argument addresses issues of great interest, using methods which are ill-defined and hence endlessly disputable.

One clear advantage of "natural philosophy" has been that it identifies clearly the usable techniques, after which practitioners have been able to seek subject matter to which the methods are applicable.

Your ontological negative "there is no evidence etc" may actually be true, but it is a purely abstract philosophical question: the scientific question is rather whether anyone has produced naturalistic evidence, exactly what that naturalistic evidence is, and by what naturalistic arguments the evidence qualifies as evidence.

Of course, since I am unaware of any naturalistic evidence for design and have difficulty imagining how to search for such naturalistic evidence, I am in no position to refute the claim that "There is no naturalistic evidence of 'design'." And whoever asserts the contrary should provide the corresponding naturalistic data.

But I suspect that, to defend your more sweeping claim "there is no evidence etc," you would require ill-defined, endlessly disputable methods, which would invite similarly ill-defined and endlessly disputable counter-claims from "intelligent design" proponants, stirring up yet another meaningless controversy around which the forces of reaction can organize ...

[bemildred]

13. You can't prove a negative.

As you say, it's up to the proponents of "design" to produce
evidence and an argument. I am simply asserting that they have
not done so, as yet.

If you wanted to pursue that project (producing evidence of ID)
you would have to first get some idea of what would do the job,
what would be satisfactory evidence, and I am skeptical even of
that. I doubt that the claim is falsifiable, unless the intelligent
designer(s) are seen to be part of the natural world, in which
case one still has to explain where they came from. If they are
not part of the natural world, then there is no way to falsify
their existence or non-existence, either one, in any direct way,
by naturalistic evidence. Of course I suppose they could hop in
and out from time to time ...

It is not at all clear what such evidence could be. A trademark
or makers stamp of some sort perhaps. Something that demonstrably
could not occur without magic intervention. It is magic we are
talking about here: "make it so".

What I have seen produced boils down to an argument from complexity,
and is circular in addition. You cannot explain the complexity of
the natural world with an omnipotent and omniscient deity, you have
merely replaced the question of the origin of the natural world
with the question of the origin of said deity.

So the point is, you are free to believe ID if you like, but it's
not science under any coherent meaning of that term,

"Deus ex machina" indeed.

[greyl]

15. Yes you can - sometimes.

For extreme example, I bet you could prove that there is no koala bear dancing on your head.

[bemildred]

17. I knew someone would pick that up.

The point is that it's up to the person that asserts
the koala bear exists to provide the evidence that it
does. In the same way, those who assert that the world
exhibits design must provide the evidence and argument
that it does, not those who assert the negative or null
hypothesis, that the world managed to happen autonomously,
without any unseen magic interventions.

Edit: You are correct, it's a clumsy phrase, a cliche,
and I didn't like it when I wrote it, but I was too
lazy to fix it. Now I've been punished.

[greyl]

18. no punishment was intended.

I chose "a koala bear dancing on your head" for a friendly reason. :)

[McKenzie]

4. A few simple questions for proponents of ID:

Assuming the omnipotence of god (in the context of conventional Christian theology) one has to ask why the outcomes of that design process give rise to children with Down's Syndrome, physically handicapped children, childhood cancers and so on.

Why create some human beings who have to live with those things while most of us get along very well because we don't have to deal with them? The corollary to the last question is why is it that most of us are born healthy while others are disadvantaged, often seriously so, right from the day of birth? Is that fair? Does it have a purpose? Assuming there is a purpose what is it? Assuming there is a purpose what are the selection crtiteria for determing which human beings shall be born with handicaps and which shall be blessed with health?

Perhaps those who support ID can explain all of that to me. And I'm not bashing Christians - just asking questions that many parents have probably agonised over without getting a clear answer.

[wryter2000]

5. That's exactly it

If you listen to the more educated ID'ers, they insist that naturalism is a faith like any religion. Unfortunately, too many smart people think that's an interesting insight and nod their heads in agreement. It's utterly bogus.

[struggle4progress]

7. Yes, it's bogus: it's certainly possible to engage in "natural philosophy"

without any commitment, one way or the other, on the question of whether non-naturalistic arguments might provide useful insights elsewhere. I've met a number of good scientists who are religious: their ability to do science resulted from their skill with naturalistic arguments and evidence and ability to exclude non-scientific notions from their scientific practice.

[wryter2000]

12. You and I are sure on the same page

There are lots of important questions that aren't amenable to physical/natural explanations. Without even going into religion, my favorite example is the following statement:

"Shakespeare was a great writer."

You get virtual 100% agreement with that statement. Everyone knows it's correct. And yet, there's no way for science to test that except, maybe, by asking people, but that isn't what most scientists consider proof.

Faith is another system of thought besides esthetics, as are ethics and philosophy. But when you're talking about physical things (such as evolution, gravity, chemistry, etc.) the natural approach yields the most information.

[The River]

6. There is a scientific explanation that answers BOTH sides

of this issue, but neither side seems to see it.
It's out in plain sight but no one believes it can
be so simple, or so grand.

Science is much closer to seeing the truth which is why
religion is so fearful of science. The truth won't necessarily
destroy religion but it will force a change so profound that
religion, as we currently know it, will cease to exist.
It will destroy the terribly small, limited and impotent god
of the bible (a god made in mans image). But, at the same time,
it will reveal a truth so profound and so simple that it will alter
everything for the better.

I don't think humanity is really ready for so much change.

Can I explain it here and now?
Not really. It took me 50 years to realize it.
All I can do it give you a link to the best synopsis
I have found on line.

http://www.integralworld.net/rev/rev_ashok2.html

If you have questions...I will be happy to try to answer them.

helpful hint: Assume as you read, for just a moment, that the "Big Bang" of science IS the story of creation and expulsion from Eden rolled into one.

[struggle4progress]

11. "Science" is not synonymous with "theory-building." eom

[The River]

21. ALL scientific discovery

starts with an idea, a theory.
It's then tested.
Nearly everything that touches
your life today resulted from
someones "theory". eom

[struggle4progress]

22. I don't dispute that scientific progress depends on theorizing:

what I dispute is the conflation of elaborate theorizing with science.

[bananas]

23. Is it testable?

You said, "It's then tested."
Has an experiment been proposed which might falsify his theory?
Has he made any specific predictions about human evolution that would confirm or contradict his theory? Anything we might see in the next few decades?

[bananas]

14. Yeah, I have a question

Isn't a "synopsis" suppose to be short?

[The River]

19. It is the short version

I've spent 10 years studying integral thought

[greyl]

16. At best, what you link to could be considered philosophy.

At best.

One wonders why Ken Wilber would need so many books on the market to describe something so simple. As he himself said, "all of my books are lies".

[The River]

20. Like maybe he should have

just "gotten" it with his first book and saved us all
a lot of reading. Somethimes the simplist things the
hardest to communicate.

Everything is evolving constantly, thats the point.

And no, I wouldn't say his work is a philosophy, per se.
I see a framework, constructed using the sciences of both
matter and mind on which most any event (or person) can be located
and understood from an inclusive trans-rational POV.

I see a lot of trans-personal understanding on this board.
I see the opposite at Freep Re-pubic. The quality of empathy is
one of the main differences between Liberals and the Conservatives.
What I don't see, is much trans-rational thinking on either board.
More's the pity, it's a way out of the partisan mess we find ourselves in.

[carl_pwccaman]

24. Wilbur, ID, Speculative Metaphysics, etc.

I think Ken Wilbur is an excellent example to use, when discussing where ID belongs, its subject-matter, it's place if it is to appear in a curriculum.

Whether the subject is intelligent design of the universe or holons, or various metaphysical systems, such matters have a lot in common, they all are speculative and touch on metaphysical or ontological types of questions, and can be considered in classes that deal with such subject, and such authors can be presented along with their peers, with other authors of similar stature.

I.e., popular books on speculation can be discussed together in a class on popular speculation. A class on contemporary speculation in academia can focus on journal articles and scholarly books on similar subjects, instead of currently popular books. Perhaps another class could do both, starting with the popular books and then going into the scholarly/academic views pro/con/alternatives, etc.

At issue with much of this is genre or field. In a class on the humanities in general, much can be fit in, depending on the understanding of the role of the humanities curriculum. Similarly a class on philosophy might go into popular literature as well as the classics and current academic/scholarly works.

But a science class doesn't treat even ALL Science, but a limited subset of science. Even a general science class will steer towards naturalistic and methodological science. I think it's fine to study natural philosophy in a class that can distinguish the earlier understanding of science, from modern science or from science outside of the field of philosophy. But making that clear is part of REALLY educating.

Dishonesty is part of the problem. Some teachers of this or that, present their view in a simplified way that ignores some inconvenient clarifications. I.e., Creation Science neglects to indicate that Evolution is more naturalistic, based in more research, more evidence, more verified by other science, results in more useful results, and is therefore more scientific in its actual status, than Creation Science which performs far less adequately according to those standards and those rulse of naturalistic modern science. I.e., Evolutionists may use words like 'fact' without indicating some of the facts of how science operates, i.e., the ability to revise and correct bad theories and parts of theories that may be discounted in the future by the consensus of science as a better understanding may emerge.

A clearer understanding of what modern science itself means by standards of evidence, method, etc., and how things fit in or do not fit in to those standards, would be far clearer, and if done adequately, would allay a lot of fears of religious folk, without cowering before them either, though without allowing for reckless arrogance of science teachers that really is unecessary anyhow.

The full weight of scientific evidence, method, and theory, can be presented without the rather unscientific and non-objective sweeping statements, distortions, and arrogant implications of solid unchanging factuality of current theories about the distant past, origins, etc.

I.e., zealots on either side will not be happy, but good scientists will be happy, as will honest and informed people everywhere, but of course you may never please fundamentalists and can't hope to please the unreasonable anyhow.

[The River]

26. I agree with what you say

in general. It boils down to this:
There are the "hard" physical sciences that provide
tangible physical proof of their correctness and the
"soft" sciences like sociology, psychiatry, etc. whose
proofs are less tangible but no less real to the trained eye.
I see philosophy more as a science of ideas &thinking.
Religion is, IMHO, a non-science and has no business being
taught outside the home, church or in a comparative religion class.

[carl_pwccaman]

27. Good way to look at it.

The way religion tends to deny the possibility of its falsehood, as a distinguishing feature between it and other subjects, makes it uncritical, and yes, that would mean, unscientific.

Religious studies is more like art appreciation or literary criticism than any science (hard or soft).

I like the way you described philosophy as a science of ideas.

[carl_pwccaman]

28. Transrational solutions?

In what way is trans-rational thinking a way out of some of the mess we are in? I'm not sure what you mean by trans-rational, for one...