Darwinists, Why not have a little faith?
by Steve PetermannMany supporters of Darwinism fear that if intelligent design orientations find there way into mainstream science it will retard or halt progress. They claim that instead of scientists doggedly searching for the "real" causes of things, they will invoke design and no progress will be made. But is this a realistic fear? Perhaps if they had a bit more faith in their own paradigm they could rest a lot easier.
Darwinists staunchly believe in the power of natural selection. It is a cardinal principal. Some kind of change happens in a system and natural selection weeds out that which is unfit. But where on earth could one find a more competitive arena with enormous selection pressures than in science. Scientists have to compete mightily for research funding, prestige, tenure, peer acceptance, etc. Scientists who do not produce, quickly find themselves "selected out".
If a design orientation is such a vacuous approach that will truncate real progress, how long will those who adopt it survive the brutal selection pressures. Surely Darwinists who have a little faith should rest easy that scientific IDers will quickly disappear from the scientific arena, just one more failed fossil on the selection heap.
Perhaps the fear is not that ID will ruin science but that it actually might enhance it.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Hi Steve,
Ratzsch makes the same observation in this review of Pennock's Intelligent Design Creationists [sic] and Their Critics:
Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Some might argue that is happening right now, and this is precisely why ID has gotten nowhere in the scientific community. The philosophical, mathematical, and biological claims have each been assessed by the relevant experts, and always come up severely lacking. Somebody on this blog should really review "Why Intelligent Design Fails", the mainstream ID movement seems to be trying to ignore it completely.
Comment by hebenz — June 30, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Hi hebenz,
You're right, the selection pressures are already being applied. But it is true of every new paradigm that the establishment tries to "select out" something that challenges its place. If there is so little merit to the new paradigm it probably will get dropped even before it gets off the ground. That is part of the selection process. Judging from the continuing growth of ID friendly scientists, philosophers, etc. and even Nobel Laureates, ID does have the merit to survive these early pressures. Remember this is a new approach to science. As ID proponents admit, it is still in its infancy and has its challenges. Only time will tell if it can be productive enough to survive what will, no doubt, be continued pressures against it.
Comment by Steve Petermann — June 30, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
As far as I've been able to tell the approach of ID is not bad, just superficial. The deficiencies in The Privileged Planet are represenative, I suspect.
MJ
Comment by Meta-jester — June 30, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
June 30th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Hi Meta-jester,
From the dictionary:
I agree, but then when it comes to explorations of ultimate reality aren't they all superficial? Surely you, as a physicist, would agree that all fundamental scientific theories can't claim to be more than superficial.
Faced with that it seems to me there are two options:
1. Remain eternally agnostic.
2. Do the best one can and make an actionable choice that informs one's sense of self and the cosmos.
Comment by Steve Petermann — June 30, 2005 @ 8:00 pm
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:14 pm
Scientists would be a lot more sanguine about competing for grants and research monies if ID advocates would, indeed, compete in the science arenas. But they don't. As was revealed by the litigation in Arkansas in 1981, critics of Darwinian theory are not kept out of science journals by a cabal of scientists oppressing the research — the critics don't publish because they don't do research, and so they don't have anything to publish.
Consequently, ID advocates, assuming the mantle of creationism in the 21st century (whether they wish to do that or not) do not propose research projects. They do not compete for National Science Foundation research grants. They do not compete for National Institute of Health research positions or outside research grants. Instead they get their political allies to propose amendments to claim scientific integrity, integrity they have not earned in the laboratory or in the field.
As Judge Overton noted in the decision in McLean v. Arkansas, all that is necessary to get into high school textbooks is to do research and publish it. Instead, ID advocates campaign in churches claiming political oppression, and asking support to lobby school boards and legislatures to get laws passed granting them by fiat what they cannot earn in research.
No scientist fears competition from good ideas and hard-working, honest researchers. Scientists rightly are concerned that intelligent design does not appear to be that sort of competition.
Why do ID advocates lack the faith in their ideas so much that they won't even test them in a lab?
Comment by edarrell — July 2, 2005 @ 8:14 pm
July 3rd, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Keeping the Faith
I Find Your Lack of Faith in Darwinism Disturbing…
Trackback by Reflections on Reality — July 3, 2005 @ 7:13 pm