List members interested in the creation/evolution/ID debacle may like to
visit
Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/
and
Talk Design
http://www.talkdesign.org/
Both really excellent, well-researched and scholarly sites aiming to assess
and discuss these issues from a scientific perspective.
Kat
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Murphy Glenn
Sent: 11 August 2005 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] (Un)Intelligent Design (was [PSCI-COM] Content
fil ters)
Seems to me that there are some vast over-simplifications of the issue here
on both sides of the argument.
There are two issues at work here:
1) The nature of scientfic vs non-scientific theories
2) The motivation for teaching ID or evolution in the first place
On the first point, it's important to note that a "theory" doesn't equate
to a "scientific theory" solely because the former tries to address the same
subject matter as the latter.
That said, there need not necessarily be enquivocal proof in order that a
theory be considered scientific - only the absence of disproof (and perhaps
a degree of corroborating data).
To illustrate:
>I don't agree that the definition of Intelligent Design as religion is as
clear-cut as you imply - ID does infer a 'belief in and reverence for a
supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the
universe'....however, it is also a 'theory of the origin of life' - this is
science.>
Just because it's "a theory on the origin of life", it doesn't mean it's a
scientific one. Other theories on the origins of life on earth might include
"seeding" by comets or extraterrestrials, or all of life dripping from the
phallic spear of a demi-god. These are no less valid culturally than
scientific theories. The difference is that we demarcate scientific theories
as being testable. Granted, many of them (Big Bang theory and evolution by
natural selection included) are difficult to test directly, but they are at
least, in principle, testable. One solid counterexample would disprove the
theory, and much as ID advocates have attempted to invoke complex structures
(like the vertebrate eye) and "missing links" between species as
counter-examples, these are all explainable artefacts of evolution, and so
no known disproof exists - this is why we maintain a belief in it.
By contrast, ID states - if you render the conveniently vague passive
constructions such as "shows evidence of design" into their active form -
that "someone or something designed life", or at least the parts we have
difficulty in (or an aversion to) explaining otherwise.
This is not unscientific because it's not provable. Lots of scientific
theories survive unproved (and yet well utilised) to this day.
It is unscientific because it's not even testable. As the designer (God,
alien race, whatever) is either ineffable, extradimensional, or - at the
very least - undetectable by any known means.
We don't require proof for everything we believe, but we do require a
lack of disproof. This allows room for faith and scientific theory to
co-exist, if only people would let it. Science cannot disprove the existence
of God, Allah or any other supreme being, as their existence is not
testable, and they hence lie outside its realm of influence. So science can
never negate or replace such beliefs (unless you desperately want it to),
and faith in a supreme being is purely a matter of personal choice. This
faith is in no way incompatible with a concurrent belief in the relative
accuracy of scientific knowledge.
So this brings us to the second question: what motivates the teaching of
ID and evolution at all? For the latter, it forms part of a continuum of
testable, corroborated scientific knowledge alongside other areas of
biology. Therefore it makes perfect sense to teach it in science classes.
But why are the advocates of ID - an untestable theory - so keen to have it
taught alongside - and hence regarded as - testable scientific theories? Why
not simply teach it in religious or socio-cultural education classes
alongside other untestable (but no less valid) beliefs held throughout the
world, such as those of karma and reincarnation?
Is it because they feel that science has a monopoly on "truth", and that
knowledge taught in a science class is considered more "true" than that
taught in other classes? If so, it demonstrates a remarkable degree of
insecurity in their own faith. If evolution and faith in a supreme being are
not mutually exclusive beliefs, then why work so hard to make them so?
Surely this tactic is simply preaching to the converted for Creationists,
while forcing everyone else to make uncomfortable choices between their
faith in God and their belief that science is a useful (and largely
accurate) form of knowledge.
For all the rhetoric and trendy socio-speak of "privileged" forms of
knowledge, I hate to say it, but - in this case at least - really does boil
down to the same old arugment in a new guise. For advocates of both
Creationism and ID, the absence of a life-designer in the theory of
Evolution implies the absence of God, and this is threatening and offensive.
But this is merely their inference, not a clear implication. For everyone
else, Evolution is the process by which life developed, naturally and
independently of tinkering designers, from its first origins to the forms we
see today. This does not necessarily imply that some form of supreme being
didn't kick the whole thing off with the Big Bang and watch it go - or any
number of other beliefs that encapsulate both faith-based and scientific
knowledge.
There really isn't an argument here unless one side or the other (i.e.
die-hard religious or atheist-science fanatics) create one. Sad, really.
Glenn
This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and
are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify
the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and
destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of
Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the
MessageLabs Email Security System.
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list
archive,
can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and
science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|
