INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL (With comments on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial)

INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL

(With comments on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial)

What is Intelligent Design?

Both of these aspects will be discussed:• A movement with political and cultural goals,

heavily influenced by religion, aimed at toppling “Darwinism” (here understood as a broad cultural mindset, not simply evolution)

AND• A set of ideas about detecting design within

science, coupled with a critique of “Darwinism” (here understood as evolution by natural selection, unguided by any detectable agent)


• ID is not “creationism,” despite Judge Jones’ decision and the testimony leading to it. It clearly lacks some crucial distinguishing features of creationism and the specific religious concerns that drive creationism.

• E.g., it takes no stance on the central theological issue that drives creationism, “death before the fall” (theodicy). If one does not understand this, one does not understand what creationism is.

ID is not “creationism”

• E.g., ID does not “explain” the fossil record by claiming that the Biblical flood accounts for it

• E.g., ID does not deny the “Big Bang” theory—indeed, some of the most interesting “design” arguments assume the truth of the “Big Bang” theory

• E.g., ID does not deny the great antiquity of the earth and universe


• Currently, the ID movement is, to use its own language, a “big tent” under whose sprawling canvas there is plenty of room for differences of opinion about theological and biblical issues related to the age of the earth.


• ID does however resemble creationism in its tone—evolution is often seen as a false scientific theory and as the leading cause of moral and spiritual decline in modern America.

• Furthermore, ID adherents have often been reluctant clearly to admonish creationist allies. E.g., a few years ago creationists in Kansas removed the “big bang” theory from state science standards, and many of the same people are allied with ID advocates now in ongoing efforts to change science education in Kansas.


• Much confusion about what “ID” is, relative to “creationism,” at the popular level.

• E.g., in Annville-Cleona (PA) a few years ago, “creationists” on the school board banned the use of a children’s book mentioning the “Big Bang” theory, and at the same time made reference to “irreducible complexity.” A failure here to realize that most ID advocates embrace both of these things.


• E.g., my experience at the Smithsonian Institution showing of The Privileged Planet DVD in June 2005.


• This has led to situations such as the one in Dover, in which the school board members themselves were clueless about what ID actually is. They were unable to answer questions from journalists about what ID is, yet they voted to refer to it in a statement that was ordered to be read in biology classes!


• ID is NOT, at least not yet, an alternative theory to evolution, an alternative “theory of everything” in a certain sense

• ID, unlike “creationism,” does not purport to be such a theory. It does not, for example, offer an answer to such questions as how and when dinosaurs came into existence; or how old the universe is.

• This, IMO, counts against its acceptance by the scientific community

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

• “ … once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place.” p. 77

• “The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another …” p. 77


• Presently there is no ID “theory” to “teach,” no alternative explanation of the history of the universe and the life it contains.

• ID is, however, a philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of evolution.


• ID is not (yet) discussed in professional scientific literature (for the most part), but it is being discussed in some professional literature about the philosophy of science.

What are key ID ideas?

• Design is evident in nature, and science can detect it. How?

• William Dembski: when we find, in some aspects of nature, “specified complexity,” enormously improbable events that fit a specific pattern

• Such things cannot be accounted for by chance and law alone, or chance and law working together


• Design is evident in nature, and science can detect it. How?

• William Dembski: The Design Inference


• Dembski: “The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design.”


• Design is evident in nature, and science can detect it.

• Where?


• Design is evident in the universe itself

• Fine tuning of the cosmos (linked with big bang and strong anthropic principle)

• And the cosmic singularity


• Design is evident in the origin of life

• The first ID book, before there was an ID movement, is perhaps still the best: The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984)


• Design is evident in the “irreducible complexity” of cells

• Michael Behe: unguided forces of nature cannot produce some complex structures

• E.g., bacterial flagellum


• Design is evident in the Cambrian explosion, the “big bang of biology”

• Steven Meyer (philosopher of science and former geophysicist)


• Paul Nelson: We need more explanatory tools to account for biological diversity and complexity

• That is, we need “design”• “Design” is invoked to

supplement “natural” causes

• Here, “natural” contrasts with “intelligent,” not “supernatural”

What are some goals of the ID movement?

• A narrower goal: to replace Darwinian evolution as the dominant paradigm in biology, in this present generation if not the next

• A wider goal: cultural transformation


• Phillip Johnson: The “wedge” strategy

• “Design” is the “entering wedge of truth, splitting the foundations of naturalism.”

• Johnson believes that accepting methodological naturalism (MN) fatally damages morality and culture


• Dembski believes that ID’s challenge to evolution and naturalism is “ground zero of the culture war.”


• “Because of Kitzmiller v. Dover, school boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will — the culture war demands it!” (from Dembski’s preface to Darwin’s Nemesis)

What about naturalism?

• ID advocates see naturalism, not evolution itself, as the ultimate problem

• “Theistic or ‘guided’ evolution has to be excluded as a possibility because Darwinists identify science with a philosophical doctrine known as naturalism.” (p. 114)


• ID advocates typically accept naturalism for understanding how the world works now, but they reject it for understanding some aspects of how the world came to be the way it now is. That is, they push the distinction between the “empirical sciences” which can be verified from direct observation and the “historical sciences” in which (in their view) “just-so stories” can always be invented to explain away the appearance(s) of design.


• That is, they push the distinction between the “empirical sciences” and the “historical sciences” much further than mainstream scientists would push it.

• Historically, “creationists” have also pushed this distinction very, very hard—it is in fact crucial to creationism. Is it also crucial to ID?


• Historically, scientists have always sought to find naturalistic explanations for as many phenomena as possible. This does seem to put ID on a collision course with the history of science.

Historical vs Empirical Sciences

• The late Ernst Mayr gets at this distinction in some of his writings, such as What Makes Biology Unique? (2004)


• Quoting a review by Lukas K. Buehler: “With this book Mayr demands a philosophy of biology that treats biology as an autonomous science, distinct in many respects from the dominant hard science (Wissenschaft) of physics and chemistry, and similar to the soft science of the humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), particularly history.”


• “Mayr distinguishes two aspects of biology: functional biology that relies on experimental approaches of the hard science and asks how something happens, and evolutionary biology that is driven by asking why and uses methodologies familiar to the humanities like historical narratives and comparison, for instance in anatomy and genomics (studying similarities).”

What are some specific strategies?

• To challenge the way in which evolution is taught in schools: evolution should be taught, but “teach the controversy” also

• That is, tell students that some parts of evolution as presented in textbooks are contested by some scientists

What about Dover?

What about Dover?

• Text of the intelligent design statement Dover, Pa., teachers were instructed to read to their students:

• The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

What about Dover?

• Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

• Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

What about Dover?

• With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

What about Dover?

• One thing was entirely clear from the testimony and the judge’s decision: the local history of events in Dover linked ID with creationism inseparably—in Dover, at least.

• The judge’s ruling went further than this, however, and controversy has erupted over this.

What about Dover?

• “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,” Judge Jones wrote.

• As a result, “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

What about Dover?

What about Dover?

• Forrest’s study of the “evolution” of a key ID text, Of Pandas and People, was crucial to the judge’s ruling.

What about Dover?

What about Dover?

• Where does Judge Jones’ decision leave us?

• I don’t think we really know yet. At the moment it applies to two area codes.

• And its wording does seem to leave the possibility that science teachers might still discuss ID in certain contexts.

What about Dover?

• Prior to the ruling, Edward Larson, the leading scholar of creationism and the law, held that a science teacher could discuss ID if he or she had a clear secular educational purpose for doing so.

What about Dover?

• Pennsylvania science standards call for teachers to discuss the “nature of science”–which in the language of science education is a reference to aspects of the philosophy of science.

• The existence of refereed professional literature on ID in the philosophy of science suggests the relevance of the subject to questions regarding the interpretation of data and the formulation of hypotheses; and to questions regarding the nature of science itself.

• I believe that a science teacher might still be allowed to mention ideas linked with ID as examples of ideas in the philosophy of science—if they choose to. At the same time, however, I believe that teachers should point out the controversial nature of those ideas.

Larger Issues

• The First Amendment does not drive opposition to evolution, but it does shape it substantially.

• Is evolution really religiously neutral?

• Do public schools have to remain religiously neutral?

• Is religious neutrality the same thing as secularism?

Larger Issues

Larger Issues

• The demographics suggest an unstable situation for many years, with large numbers of Americans wanting both evolution and either creationism or ID taught in public schools, while the scientific establishment opposes this.

• Is it possible to find any solution to this situation that is acceptable to enough Americans to make it politically viable?

Larger Issues

• On April 28, 2005, the journal Nature suggested in an editorial headed “Dealing with Design,” that scientists in the lecture hall “should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.”

• Is this even possible and/or desirable in public school science classes?

• What about at the university level?

Larger Issues• “… faceless, bureaucratic state

power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices and options that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that evolution in a mandated state curriculum might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds.”

• Gould goes on to deny that evolution is really the culprit, but I think we would be badly mistaken to conclude that it has nothing to do with the problem.

Concluding Thoughts

• I do not see any solution on the horizon that will satisfy both the majority of Americans and the scientific community.

• If we want to work more productively toward possible solutions, however, my suggestion is to keep in mind the following four things.

Concluding Thoughts

• Science is not value-free.• Education is not value-free; and "secular," public

education is not actually religiously neutral.• If we are to give religious citizens the same

respect we give to other citizens, we need to take religion more seriously. We might even need to expand the range of viewpoints that will count as publicly funded educational options—although this might not be a politically viable option.

Concluding Thoughts

Failing this, we need at least to take science more seriously in public education:

• To help students clarify the type of knowledge it actually represents, relative to philosophy, religion, etc.

• To explain far better than we presently do how scientific hypotheses are formed, tested, and evaluated—and, since instructional time is a zero-sum game, some other scientific content must be sacrificed to do this.

• To discuss some of the ways in which science relates to religious beliefs. I believe that more attention to the history and philosophy of science in science classes is a potentially helpful way to accomplish this.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL (With comments on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial)

Documents

Transcript of INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL (With comments on the Kitzmiller v Dover trial)