ID: Too Big for Science?
by MikeGeneOver the last week, we got to see two decrees about Intelligent Design. The first came from 120 ISU faculty, defining things in this manner:
We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor"¦"¦ We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.
A couple days later, the Biology Department at Lehigh University reached the same conclusion:
It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Such official statements do not surprise me.
We must always remember that Science is both a human and community endeavor, meaning that a deeper appreciation for Science must be informed by a psychological and sociological perspective. When these collectives hand down such pronouncements, they are strengthening a case I have been making for some time now by providing some more sociological data.
One should remember that I have long noted that ID is not science. Thus, I don't come to the table trying to defend the notion that ID is science. But if the community position is that all attempts to represent ID as a scientific endeavor must be rejected, and scientists and scholars are encouraged to reject all efforts to portray ID as Science , and ID "has no basis in science," and ID "should not be regarded as scientific," what does this imply about our sociological reality?
I suggest it helps us see that Science has evolved and adapted to a point where it can no longer seriously process whether or not Life was designed. Science can indeed react to anti-evolutionary claims, as science clearly speaks to evolution. But whether or not Life itself was designed is not something that fits within the "diet" of science. The question may just be too big for Science (for many reasons) and thus is supposed to be asked and considered outside of science.
If the majority of peer reviewers agree with the positions laid out by the Two Decrees, then how could they ever possibly peer review a paper about Life's design? To consider such a paper would be to consider something that is, by definition, outside of the realm of science and the subject material of their journal.* As such, the questions posed by ID are not just another thing that science can consider, but instead they become questions that challenge the very way the peer reviewers define and view science. In other words, it's not something in science, it becomes something about science. As I said, it may be too big for Science.
No one should be upset by this or think there is some conspiracy to keep ID out of science. It's just the way things have evolved. But it's important to keep in mind because it means the scientific community is not much of a player in these issues apart from defending and explaining evolution, responding to anti-evolution arguments, and participating in efforts to protect science education from political trouble-making. Other than this, the notion that ID "has no basis in science" or that we should reject ID as "a scientific endeavor" really doesn't mean that much relative to the issues that really matter.
*Keep in mind that Avalos and many ISU faculty don't want to be associated with ID in any way. Why would anyone think that is less true for a scientific journal?
September 3rd, 2005 at 5:22 am
In this respect, I looked up the comments of one of the reviewers on my introns article:
My answer (at that time I didn't even realize that there was more to ID than the creationism).
I defended to science of a design approach recently on ARN, here. Without the religion, I believe a design appraoch can lead to fruitful predictive hypotheses.
Comment by AdR — September 3, 2005 @ 5:22 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:47 am
Stephen Meyers echos those ideas:Can There Be a Scientific "Theory of Creation"
It may well be at this time that ID is too big for Science, Mike, and many in ID (as in those deeply interested in the scientific question) are preparing to see the research program continue independent of the prevailing peer-review process.
ID has marched forward despite the difficulties it's had with the "mainstream", there is every reason to expect it will march forward no matter what happens in the public grade school or current peer-review process. The interest is just too strong and the evidence too compelling.
ID may be too big for science today and for the near future, but I don't think that will hinder it's advance. If ID is the correct picture for reality, it cannot elude the scientific method forever. If ID is true, fair minded scientists will eventually have to come to terms with it as it's consequences will begin to prop up in their lab results and research.
A good example of this is the problems posed by "convergences" both morpohological and molecular. ID may be too big for science, but like a ghost, or perhaps an elephant, it will stand ever so near, no matter how much the scientific community wants to deny it's existence.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 3, 2005 @ 6:47 am
September 4th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
[...] , much less an ID research center, is out-of-bounds. Heads I win, tails you lose." http://telicthoughts.com/?p=259 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=244 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=245 http://teli [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — September 4, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Amazing! I'm an evolutionary biologist (ok, molecular biologist with an interest in evo-ID debate), and I think I agree with MikeGene on this one hehe.
Scientific methods do presume methodological naturalism, if only because that has been a very fruitful way of investigating the world and since we scientists are mortal natural beings, we have no method of truly investigating outside of the natural world.
I personally have no problem with different people's faiths, and I'll be the first to point out that there is no way for science to disprove the existence of a designer/creator/deity. It is a question outside of science, which is what many of us have been saying all along. I am curious how you guys, being also mortal beings on the natural plane, will go about your ongoing investigation of a supernatural event, but I wish you luck.
I do have one quibble though, with Salvador's post. "If ID is true, fair minded scientists will eventually have to come to terms with it as it's consequences will begin to prop up in their lab results and research."
If our results and research do point to ID, we will gladly choose to come to terms with it. We won't have to be forced. Many scientists are dogmatic and inflexible, but most have an almost unmatched dedication to empirically derived truth, and the scientific establishment rewards those who expose the truth. The more surprising that exposure is, the more accolades the scientist receives. If my research or anyone else's I read ever points to ID I'll shout it from the hills, but that hasn't happened just yet…
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
I recently posted a message at the Panda's Thumb [sorry for the edit but the url was too long for the column, you can use tinyurl.com if you want to repost it] on the problems science has been having with the origin of life. My post was about the new Harvard project to scientifically explain this issue. Since the news about the project came out in mid-August, my posting was not at all timely, and so probably won't get much attention unless I repost it as a comment when a relevant posting comes.
Interestingly enough the aricle about Harvard's program received scant mention in Panda's Thumb. A few people tried to put a positive spin on it, and then it just dropped out of sight.
BTW I like Telic's use of fairly standard HTML rather than Panda's KwikXML for markup.
Ralph
Comment by RalphWestfall — September 6, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
September 11th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
This is an interesting topic, imo. I wonder why it hasn't developed more?
Perhaps some people out there feel it is a threat to their scientific practise or that it somehow devalues science by placing it within a bigger picture.
I'm just glad to read again Mike Gene's clear opinion (this thread for the first time today) stating his conviction that ID is not science. However, this is of course just an ontological statement, not dealing with methodology, which some IDists, to one degree of rigour or another, obviously do use.
So perhaps we have found a place where IDM-IDists and non-IDM-IDists disagree? Salvador apparently thinks ID qualifies as science, even if teaching it in a religion or philosophy (pejoratively used) course would be acceptable in these 'early years' of ID's theoretical development. Mike Gene apparently wouldn't want ID taught in a religion or philosophy course either, since who can teach something that is just a hunch?
I believe the question is actually: what does this imply about our social reality? In that case, yes, it tells many things about the 'socially and culturally specific location' in which ID has originated and is currently being promoted. Doesn't it say something particular about American science that there are some in its company who would try to promote a theistic science as a proof for the existence of Design (in this case, the big D must be used since a multi-level design approach is assumed by all IDM leadership, which apparently exceeds natural causality)?
Unfortunately, very few wish to discuss the sociological dimension probably because they wish to appear 'objective' and thus 'scientific' and therefore based on 'truth,' which others are apparently not privy to or just blinded from. When certain persons inside the IDM accuse scientists, who actually share their religious convictions, that their theology is 'woefully, even perniciously confused,' such that not to fully embrace ID is pure folly, we begin to understand some of the contorted views across the social spectrum in modern-day USA. "Believe in ID because it's true" – this rhetoric is as strong and as blunt as "you're with us or you're against us." Can't we have both? I believe in i+d, just not in the narrowly aimed Americanized version that the IDM promotes.
Adding another bit to the OP, though not just to take a contrary position, I would say ID is currently 'too small for science.' ID, when it promotes the concepts of the IDM (EF, UPB, SC, CSI, IC) is too small for science since it stops at certain gaps in our knowledge and at the same time seeks to refute naturalism as a basis for scientific method. When IDists will not explain the difference between human-made design and non-human-made design, this shows how much they are stopping short of a potentially acceptable information-based theory. When IDists will not specify exactly which forms or types of evolution they accept as true and which they reject as false, and thus that can be improved upon, it is obvious they have not reached a similar level of metaphorical value that Darwin and Wallace's idea of natural selection and other forms of biological evolution have found.
AdR's response shows the 'too small for science' approach clearly. It goes something like "Of course design is used, isn't it obvious? I'm an engineer (or a graphic designer). I design. Therefore design exists. Therefore design can be scientific." Design in the human-made design sense is of course impossible to deny. But at this level of discourse, IDM-ID would not enable the 'revolution' that Dembski and colleagues have promised.
ID, when it promotes theistic science, otoh, is too big for science. By attacking methodological naturalism or undermining (the) methods of science based on nature and natural causes, ID implodes upon its own logic and thus requires an incredulous gap-like theory. When it comes to origins-of-life or origins-of-biological information, then yes, ID could be considered too big for science.
ID then sometimes takes the unusual position of actually even denying supernaturalism (when not being promoted in churches, synagogues or mosques) in its attempts to distance itself from Creation Science of the previous generation. When YEC Salvador, however, writes 'if ID is true…' people must realize he is referring to a different dimension or layer of ID thinking than the attempts at ID-related bench research. Theological ID, since ID is supposed to have implications for 'all humane studies,' is downplayed to an almost zero-factor, while the designer is smuggled in as an invisible inference. It's a strange phenomenon indeed!
Gotta love ID-logic sometimes!
Comment by g arago — September 11, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
September 11th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Careful sanjait. I think Mike Gene is actually an evolutionary-ID biologist too! Wouldn't that be a special treat and help explain why his positions is not as of a normal IDM-IDist? We who criticize ID needn't disagree with MG all the time.
I appreciate your apparently balanced approach as a scientist (grad student) to faith and religion, since many scientists tend to the trappings of scientism, even to the god-likeness that certain doctors or surgeons might feel. If you acknowledge questions that can be approached outside of science, surely that will help in your philosophical and theological searches and the personal pilgrimage you are on. Good wishes.
Comment by g arago — September 11, 2005 @ 4:29 pm