watching the coverage of the Pennsylvania evolution/I.D. debate has drawn me out. What bothers me the most is just how poor the argumentation is on all sides of the debate, and the horrific assumptions that are claimed.
Part of the problem is that this form of Intelligent Design being argued is a religious variant (yes, there are others) and people really no longer know how to discuss religion. It's become one of those subjects that, like watching sports on TV, makes everyone an assumed expert.
First let me say, I am not claiming that one has to an Anselm, or Aquinas or Chesterton to be religious, or for that matter to oppose religion. Similarly, one doesn't have to be a lawyer in order to be a law-abiding citizen. However, it is generally assumed, that to discuss and formulate some of the complex underpinnings of our society some legal expertise is invaluable. Unfortunately, most assume that the two weeks of Sunday school or schule has given them enough, not to talk about their personal opinions, but to discuss what amounts to the philosophical underpinnings.
And this ignorance shows. A reasonably intelligent man like Richard Dawkins makes pronouncements (such as to the impossibility of intelligent religious people, forgetting the background of the Father of the very genetic disciplines he is in, not to mention the majority of scientists prior to say, the 1900's) that would be laughed out of an undergrad Religious Studies class and those in his court nod solemnly as though A Point Has Been Made.
The problem with this whole debate, from my perspective is that it is mainly about metaphysics argued poorly. Many scientists involved in the debate like to scoff at the idea of metaphysics and philosophy having anything to do with what they do. But it does and has leaked in.
Its all well and good to chuckle at those that argued against evolution, and keep in mind many of the non-American early debates on the subject were not about the idea of it, but actually sound (at the time) concerns with some of the mechanisms of the theory. Science has since filled in many of the gaps, but much of the non-Scopes debates were quite reasonable including some critics from the religious side actually backing alternate mechanisms from evolution than Darwin's. In fact the idea of evolution is far, far older than Darwin and one of the most basic mistakes is conflating Darwinism (which was/is the most successful theory) with evolution (which is a process that has had a number of scientific models in its time).
But let's look at another debate in the annals of science and see where the metaphysics of its practitioners guided conclusions. Originally, many of the more fervent materialists in the science camp came down hard on the Big Bang theory. Separate from reasonable critiquing of the theory as part of the academic process, they raised strong opposition because they felt that the idea of a 'start point' for the universe too clearly led to a belief in a creator. This was not a minority perspective. On the other side of the debate were actually Catholic scientists in the mix, some supporting for precisely this reason. And, of course, both sides were wrong. Science has said nothing about whether the Big Bang implies a creator or not. It has nothing at all to say about it. Certainly both sides have, at times, read aspects of this cosmology to prove their point, but it has hardly resolved anything.
There is similarly faulty logic in 95% of evolution/I.D. talk. Science should have nothing to say about the existence, or lack thereof of a creator on the topic of evolution. Many scientists though, choose to make commentary on this subject on the assumption that it does have something to say on the matter. It is when science makes these sorts of philosophical claims that the trouble starts. Yes, science is and must be predicated on naturalism and materialism. But that it is a far leap from assuming that the things that a naturalist-materialist methodology can detect are the whole world, therefore the world is materialist in nature and function. Similarly, I don't assume that the Laws of Carpentry mean that everything is made of wood and nails.
On the other side of the debate, but strangely shared by both, is the belief that proof of Intelligent Design (should some ever come to light) justifies or vindicates Christianity (most commonly) or some other religion. This is terrible, terrible thinking, not just for science, but for religion. To take Christianity as an example, proof that would justify it as a faith would have to prove not only that the universe was designed, but that this same designer made himself known to Jewish prophets, choosing the tribes of Israel as his chosen people, and later incarnated, was killed and came back to life. Probably not going to find that in any fossil record, gaps or no gaps. I cannot think of any 'proof' of I.D. that would not also possibly implicate Zeus, Xipe Toltec, Brahma or any other deity or deities. Nor would it even prove a religious source. Here, I am thinking of Crick (of Crick and Watson fame) and his theory of 'directed transpermia' and it's um...interesting attempt to implicate super-intelligent aliens as our creators (hey, discover DNA, blame the aliens...it all evens out). Some scientists of an atheistic bent get so freaked out that I.D. could possibly support their nemesis that they get a little unhinged, totally disregarding that even if proof of I.D. existed, most religions would be 1/10000 of a percent closer to establishing their specific claims.
The whole argument is a non-starter.
It's a non-starter because it attempts to imply that design is a supernatural process. There is a car sitting in my drive. I am quite certain that it was designed. I am quite certain that Koreans designed it. I am also quite certain that (although Bibimbap is heavenly) Koreans are naturally occurring intelligent beings. If we assume that they are the result of a process of blind natural selection we still have to wrestle with the fact that design has entered into the picture. We could take a strictly materialistic determinist perspective and claim that the presence of the Hyundai is still the result of blind material mechanism because the human Korean brain that evolved was mechanistically driven to invent this and build this car - a fact predetermined since the Big Bang. But then the whole idea of design is impossible, period. It is an illusion we experience to mask blind necessity. This leads to strange arguments then as to why the universe seems predetermined to observe itself etc. but those are other issues.
We could disregard blind mechanism and separate human design faculties from its processes, but then we have shifted the problem. How does human design escape these causal factors that underlie the rest of the known universe.
We also seem to choke on the idea of design. Most I.D.'ers claim that complexity is a factor of design. An organism is 'too complex' to be the result of blind evolutionary process. Yet, must design be complex? Marking a page with a line could be a result of my design, but it could also be a result of a pen falling of the table (ignoring, for the moment the design implication of pen and paper). I think there are interesting questions to be asked about how we determine 'design', Eric McLuhan (son of Marshall) has written some interesting thoughts on this that are, sadly, beyond the scope of my ramblings for now.
Finally, and most importantly, there is the argument of pure practicality. Science at this moment seems fixated on the idea that religion is undermining it. Likewise in reverse.
I want to toss out an idea to both sides of the debate: you have both lost. On a practical level, the average American student isn't going to perform poorly in the sciences because I.D. infiltrated his brain and drove him to the clergy. The debate has already been one by the fact that, if I don't go to a dedicated science webpage, I get my science news after Paris Hilton, Hollywood gossip, past the comics page, past the sports page at the back. Each time an earth-like new planet is discovered...a miracle neither the religious nor the atheist deny or conflict over, it has been out-competed by Michael Jackson, some missing white kid, shark attacks or anything. We will spend more on movies about going to Mars than on actually going to Mars. So while this endless, inane religion versus science debate goes on yet again, worried about the souls/minds of students - they have already been lost. A guy that can throw a ball or hit it with a bat will make more than some research institutes and religious charities combined.
The Scopes trial was unique because it captured the attention of people who still cared about what the implications were. And although neither side would admit it, these two sides that probably agree on 99% of science's claims, have more in common with each other in that they are both some of the few remaining people that think questions like this matter. In our time, people are more concerned about diet fads and celebrity murders. You want to look at damaging claim for science? Don't look to the local pastor - look to Madison Avenue advertisers and secular interest group warpings of the other 99% of science.
But since this is an issue, what do I think about I.D. in the science classroom? Simple. I'm against it for the simple reason that it makes science in that field impossible. Even if it is 100% true that God made Man, it is still the job of science to investigate its natural mechanisms. Placing the black box of an unknowable deity in the room stalls this investigation. It's similar to the fact that although I personally believe in ideas like free will (well, it's a little more complicated) I still want science to investigate the brains workings to make advances in medicine etc. even if science cannot accept the idea of free will. We forget in our secular smugness that most of the basis of our society wouldn't pass scientific muster. Some laugh at those who place their belief in 'some old book' without asking - would the Constitution pass science's tests? Would The Bill of Rights? Are Men created equal, scientifically speaking? Have you seen proof of any of Man's natural 'rights'? Any sign in nature of rights?
The point is, though they may be informed by science, they are not expected to justify themselves to science. They operate on a scale science has done very poorly at (just look at the 'social sciences' for an amazing track record.) Just as the world of classical mechanics seems to end at the quantum scale, so to does it end on the social scale. And that's o.k.
One of the few intelligent people to comment on this that I have found is a geologist who has been involved in these debates and quite clearly points out the mistakes on all sides (while still being strongly on the side of the hard sciences).
For those actually interested in challenging themselves a little (and keep in mind, this is the Professor's private musings, not scholarly stuff) I recommend the following summations:
If you consider yourself religious, read:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyIntNoRB.HTMIf you consider yourself on the other side of the fence, read:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyRBNoInt.HTMAnd finally for views on religious dialogue that has become so stupid even a hard scientist takes notice, read:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/10DumRel.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
