Hi Glenn,
Very quickly - and I don't wanted to be dragged into this much further -
I did not state that ID was a scientific theory simply because it's a
theory, or solely because it's a theory of the origin of life.
However, ID purports to 'analyse statistical and experimental evidence
that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation for the origin
of life' i.e. it can be seen as 'scientific argument' against natural
selection.
Regards,
Wynn
-----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
**********************************************************************
|