Here is an interesing argument for Intelligent Design (ID) that many IDers coming out of the Discovery Institute make (look for the Mon Nov 14, 5:29 pm post by Conservativeman),
The problem is that an “Evolution Only,†policy is not really scientific or constitutional. It is not scientific because it is officially biased rather than scientifically objective. Because it is biased, it is not religiously neutral. Evolution Only effectively requires our children to “know†that we come from a natural rather than an intelligent cause, that we are occurrences and not designs, and that we naturally arise without purpose from a purposeless process. It effectively teaches that no rational evidentiary basis exists for theistic beliefs. Evolution Only converts these scientific claims into dogmas that are the fundamental tenets of non-theistic religions and that directly contradict the fundamental tenets of theistic religions. Accordingly, in my opinion, Evolution Only is not “secular†or neutral. Rather it is an ideology that directly conflicts with the First Amendment rights of parents and students.
Not only are there some fundamental errors in this post in regards to evolutionary theory and science, it is also bad theology, IMO. For example, implying the evolutionary theory (and science in general) are not simply secular, but also have a religious component it defines religion in a way that any religious person should find troubling. Consider the following characteristics about science: scientific hypotheses are based on empirical evidence. For a religious person this should be somewhat troubling if one is to define science as a religion. What evidence is there for God? Are we going to start looking for direct and indirect evidence for God and weighing different interpretations of God based on the evidence? If you are religious and starting to feel a bit uncomfortable with this, good.
There are really only two ways I can see ID being a scientific theory. That is for aliens to have been the designer or for man to start placing constraints on God. For example, suppose we have a scientific theory, call it X. Further, let us assume that there are 100 facets to X that can be used to test/verify X, call them {x1, x2,…,x100}. Now if it turns out that we observe some y’s instead of x’s then we have to consider theory Y. In other words, theory X prohibits theory Y from holding. Or to put it another way, if X is true, then Y cannot be true. In science theories are useful because we can delineate between theories and weigh the evidence against each theory. But if we have an omnipotent supernatural being then there is no way any other explanation can compete. So to make the supernatural version of ID scientific we have to put constraints on God.
With the alien ID theory we at least could test this theory. If we find an alien race on another planet and say they have similar DNA. That would indicate that either that alien race designed us, or a third race designed both of humans and the aliens we just contacted. So at least there is a potential for testing the theory. Oddly enough this makes the Raelians a bit more scientific that the Discovery Institute people. Of course, right now we have no evidence supporting the notion of alien design so we should reject it in favor of the natural explanation.
Another problem with Conservativeman’s view is that it offers a false dichotomy. Either we arose via supernatural design, or we arose via an undirected process that has no grand purpose. Another possibility is that the supernatural being works through natural processes (you know that, “God works in mysterious ways” comment). Granted this is untestable as well, but it does offer a way for people to reconcile their religious veiws with scientific views. In a way, the IDers are putting limits on God. By saying, “God could only do something in a way we can detect” puts limits on God. It says, that God must leave a fingerprint so that we can have evidence of his work.
As for the First Amendment issue that is a dry well I’m afraid. Violating the First Amendment would mean favoring one religion over another, and that would mean making a statement about the supernatural. Science however limits itself to only the natural world and hence is it is rather hard for science to make a positive statement about the supernatural. Science does make negative statements about the supernatural, such as we no longer have to invoke a god living on a mountain hurling thunderbolts when he is angry (or a god with braids, a big hammer tossing around thunderbolts). Now we have a pretty good understanding of lightening and thunder.
It seems to me that religious people have reason to worry about Intelligent Design. Not simply that it could erode America’s scientific base (it very well could), but also because it is bad theology. Since ID is silent on who is the designer it could be anything including aliens (this last one could be why Dembski came up with his new law of thermodynamics about the conservation of information). ID opens the way not only for religion but for other tenuous beliefs such as aliens, astrology, numerology, and other psuedo-sciences. Either that or God may not be all that he is cracked up to be. After all, he was clumsy enough to leave his fingerprints all over the E. coli bacterial flagellum.
Link via the Pandas Thumb.
Update: Just because I like to stir things up, I’m linking this to Jack Lewis/Danny Carlton’s trackback post.
