"Is ID Science?"

[Clutch Munny]

Since the Intelligent Design movement is getting some attention here, I thought I would resurrect and tidy up another old post I wrote about the matter at IIDB. Apologies for the cross-board necromancy!

_____


Is “Intelligent Design Theory” science? This question is asked repeatedly in the public discourse regarding ID. Curiously, it is answered in both the negative and the affirmative among the people who are the staunchest opponents of teaching ID. It seems clear that it can mean very different things – or at least that people can mean different things in uttering it. Some of the debate over the proper answer is surely a result of this equivocation: even people who have no use for ID are talking past one another when it comes to explaining why. So here’s an attempt to clear it up a bit.

I think that the answer to any one of the more carefully specified questions is pretty straightforward, so I’m hoping this may end or reduce the heavy weather that seems to accompany the discussion of ID.

Here's my take on some prime candidates for what “Is ID science?” might be taken to mean, and the answers to those various questions:

1. Is ID science? That is, are the following theses and variants of them open to scientific evaluation?

i. The universe and its properties are best explained by postulating a causally efficacious designer.

ii. Life tout court is best explained by postulating a causally efficacious designer.

iii. Specific features of some species are best explained by postulating a causally efficacious designer.

Answer: Yes. Each the variants of these claims so far suggested by ID proponents has been scientifically evaluated, to the extent its specificity permits, and has been rejected as lacking genuine evidence.

2. Is ID science? That is, do the theses i-iii and variants have any predictive, explanatory or related virtues for which scientific theories or hypotheses are valued? Answer: In any of the forms so far suggested, no; or only trivially.

3. Is ID science? That is, are the theses i-iii and variants employed to any non-trivial degree in the actual practices of actual scientists? Answer: Not literally, no, and not at all for i and ii. (One might make a case for iii’s use as a metaphor or heuristic in adaptationist reasoning in biology, but even that would be a real stretch.)

4. Is ID science? That is, are the motivations for the presentation of the theses i-iii and variants as scientific actually motivations characteristic of the presentation of scientific theories? Answer: No. The motivations seem religious, cultural and political.

5. Is ID science? Is the presentation of the theses i-iii and variants constrained in any clear sense by the availability of supporting evidence, as the presentation of theories in science at its best is constrained? Answer: to all available evidence, no.

6. Is ID science? That is, do advocates of ID propose methods and practices (widely used or not) that are at least recognized in the field for their effectiveness in generating outcomes that would rationally raise or lower the probability of the theses i-iii and variants? Answer: No.

Notice that the answer to (6) is not in tension with the answer to (1). (In case one wondered, “How did i-iii get rejected if there are no methods of probability-lowering?”) The answer to (1) is simply based on the lack of positive evidence adduced for i-iii and variants. The idea behind (6) is one familiar from the examination of the gamut of faith-healing and parapsychology experiments: namely, that the complete lack of any normal or standard or received protocols for conducting the alleged science is (over time) a growing indication that there's no real phenomenon there to be measured.

If there are other possible interpretations of the question, let's add them.

The underlying issue here is probably the demarcation problem: the problem of how to distinguish science from non-science. Many people have felt that there should be a relatively sharp line to be drawn, so that we can always have a single, short, univocal, hard-nosed, no-nonsense answer to the question of whether X counts as science. Yet no plausible way of making such a demarcation has ever been given. What is far more plausible is that there are many hallmarks of science, none of them absolutely necessary. Things count as more and less scientific along a number of dimensions, and we can ask about their resemblance to clear cases of science along each of those dimensions. That, I take it, is what we're doing when we offer distinct interpretations of "Is ID science?".

[1Samuel8]

Intelligent Design is science in the same way that Social Engineering is a science. [Now, having said that, we may think that social engineering is not science either. I am not sure.]

Also, try the following hypothetical: replace "Intelligent Design" with "Carpentry" and see what we get.
Carpentry uses science as a means to an end: building structures.
Intelligent Design uses science as a means to an end: building a church following and nurturing people's thoughts.


----


This may not reply directly to your post but, in general, I do not think it matters whether Intelligent Design is science or not. In this day and age, the market for information is incredibly liberated. It is more and more difficult to fool people.


----


I will add this. There are a few things that seem magical that science has yet to explain: gravity and magnetism. There is no explanation about why the force of gravity attracts objects instead of repels them away.
If you choose to believe that gravity and magnetism are the result of magic, you can still apply the same observations in a scientific manner.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

It is more and more difficult to fool people.

One would think this is true, but it seems not to be the case, at least in America, where there seems to be a superstitious resurgence in the last couple of decades.

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

I will add this. There are a few things that seem magical that science has yet to explain: gravity and magnetism. There is no explanation about why the force of gravity attracts objects instead of repels them away.
If you choose to believe that gravity and magnetism are the result of magic, you can still apply the same observations in a scientific manner.

While the actual mechanism that makes gravity and magnetism may not be known, there are observable and repeatable phenomenon associated with both gravity and magnetism to be able to predict their effects, see putting spaceships in orbit and MRIs. Those seem pretty scientific to me, then again, I'm no scientist. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said, there are lots of things we do not know yet, but the list seems to be getting smaller.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Yet no plausible way of making such a demarcation has ever been given. What is far more plausible is that there are many hallmarks of science, none of them absolutely necessary.

Using these "hallmarks" in the form of a non-prescriptive list was advocated by Lakatos way back when. Just for interest, though, there is an alternative "values-based" approach to the demarcation problem suggested by Feyerabend (strictly speaking, by one of his interpreters), which i've argued previously is perhaps the best way to understand the problems with ID. Here is a quote from one of his papers that explains it:

It is here, by the way, that the distinction between ‘respectable’ people and cranks must be drawn. The distinction does not lie in the fact that the former suggests what is plausible and promises success, whereas the latter suggest what is implausible, absurd and bound to fail. It cannot lie in this because we never know in advance which theory will be successful and which theory will fail. It takes a long time to decide this question, and every single step leading to such a decision is again open to revision. Nor can the absurdity of a point of view count as a general argument against it. It is a reasonable consideration for the choice of one’s own theories to demand that they seem plausible to oneself. This is one’s private affair, so to speak. But to declare that only plausible theories should be considered is going too far. No, the distinction between the crank and the respectable thinker lies in the research done once a certain point of view is adopted. The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the ‘respectable thinker’ from the crank. The original content of his theory does not. If he thinks that Aristotle should be given a further chance, let him do it and wait for the results. If he rests content with his assertion and does not start elaborating a new dynamics, if he is unfamiliar with the initial difficulties of his position, then the matter is of no further interest. However, if he does not rest content with Aristotelianism in the form in which it exists today but tries to adapt it to the present situation in astronomy, physics, and micro-physics, making new suggestions, looking at old problems from a new point of view, then be grateful that there is at last somebody who has unusual ideas and do not try to stop him in advance with irrelevant and misguided arguments.

[Watser?]

(

Feyerabend

What a weird name. Feierabend is a German word meaning the evening off, with Feier meaning celebrate and Abend meaning evening.)

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Carpentry uses science as a means to an end: building structures.
Intelligent Design uses science as a means to an end: building a church following and nurturing people's thoughts.

As for "uses," more specifically:

Carpentry constructively applies science, ID shamelessly exploits science.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Hugo Holbling

Using these "hallmarks" in the form of a non-prescriptive list was advocated by Lakatos way back when. Just for interest, though, there is an alternative "values-based" approach to the demarcation problem suggested by Feyerabend (strictly speaking, by one of his interpreters), which i've argued previously is perhaps the best way to understand the problems with ID.

Thanks. I certainly think that the values/motivations behind one's ways of doing science are among the plausible hallmarks. But, just to be clear, I'm not arguing for (nor am I very interested in, though I'm glad some people are) one side or another in Lakatos v Feyerabend. The picture I'm calling more plausible is consistent with both: namely, it's a collection of things that admit of degrees, and not one thing that defines a sharp border.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

As for "uses," more specifically:

Carpentry constructively applies science, ID shamelessly exploits science.

I don't know that it's that simple. Carpentry can be shameless and exploitative, and ID often strikes me as pretty shameful.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

While the actual mechanism that makes gravity and magnetism may not be known, there are observable and repeatable phenomenon associated with both gravity and magnetism to be able to predict their effects, see putting spaceships in orbit and MRIs. Those seem pretty scientific to me, then again, I'm no scientist.

Yes but we still have no explanation for why gravity and magnetism are predictable.

Here is an analogy.
Consider a train station during rush hour. We can predict that every morning and every afternoon during rush hour crowds of people scurry back and forth through the train station. We could use that observation to predict that ever single weekday. If that is the only thing we can observe, we can not deduce that people are going home or going to work -- that would be analogous to why we have gravity and magnetism. Nevertheless, we can still scientifically apply that observation to predict when would be the best time to safely sweep the floor, for example: during non-rush hour times.

With gravity and magnetism, we do not know why the force of attraction exists.

[Dingfod]

Perhaps, but gravity and magnetism are observable phenomenon that seem to be so universally observable and predictable that we human beings can rely on them with our very lives, so unlike many other supposed unknown phenomenon, say that of ghosts, alien spaceships, sea monsters, bigfooted bipedal apes, demons, souls, or even gods.

[Dragar]

Yes but we still have no explanation for why gravity and magnetism are predictable.

I think this generalises to the statement that we have no idea why the laws of physics are as they are.

(We do of course have very good explanations as to why gravity and (electro)magnetic forces exist, and what causes them, and so on. But those explanations are based on things that appear true ("matter changes the geometry of spacetime", etc.) for reasons we cannot explain.

I'm not entirely sure what such an explanation would look like, however.

[Shake]

Q: "Is ID science?"

A: No. (see below)

[Dingfod]

Texas State Science Cirriculum Director pressured to resign because of email criticizing Intelligent Design.

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Texas State Science Cirriculum Director pressured to resign because of email criticizing Intelligent Design.

Damn. I was hoping I'd click on the link and find an old old article.

[Caligulette]

Sorry for the double post, but I think that ID is not science. It may be called a form of study, though, really, it has to much in common with theology, but since it has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is not science.

[ShottleBop]

Here's the opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, which decided that ID was not science. The court relied, in part, on prior opinions finding that "creation science" was not science, on the basis that it was neither testable nor falsifiable (referring, possibly, to Popper's proposed rule of demarcation between scientific statements and non-scientific ones):

The court [in the earlier case] concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Here's the opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, which decided that ID was not science. The court relied, in part, on prior opinions finding that "creation science" was not science, on the basis that it was neither testable nor falsifiable (referring, possibly, to Popper's proposed rule of demarcation between scientific statements and non-scientific ones):

I don't much care for that aspect of the ruling, or perhaps that spin on that aspect of the ruling.

Once it became obvious that the Dover board's decision to introduce Of Pandas and People was a risible failure to pass the "purpose" prong of the Lemon Test, Judge Jones's ruling on ID as a whole became, in my view, unnecessary. Had he ruled instead that the Board's decision failed the purpose prong, but that ID is science, the defenders of science education would find the over-stepping and the scientific marginality of judicial opinion to be rather more obvious.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Sorry for the double post, but I think that ID is not science. It may be called a form of study, though, really, it has to much in common with theology, but since it has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is not science.

Well, what do you mean by ID? What is the scientific method, in your view (and what is it to say that ID has nothing to do with it; and how many comparatively legitimate sciences will not very clearly live up to it)?

This is just the sort of hard and fast answer that notoriously turns gelatinous under further questioning. It just strikes me as so unnecessary, since one can say that ID is poorly motivated, ill-defined, a political movement, a dead end, utterly lacking evidence, even (for some versions) tested and rejected... without insisting that it shares nothing with clearer cases of science, without insisting on a sharp line such that no part of ID is on the science side of the line.

[maddog]

"Is 'Intelligent Design' science?"

I think it depends on who is "doing it" (whatever that means) and for what purpose. To me, "science" means something roughly along the lines of "trying to understand the world/universe in which we find ourselves." "Intelligent design," and indeed many ideas regarded as "religious," can be proposed as an hypothesis to explain the world/universe we see. It's as open to investigation as anything else. I think, for example, that animistic ideas (spirits occupy rocks, trees, storms, etc.) were originally proposed as explanatory hypotheses for phenomena experienced in the world. In a program I saw on television, some fun was made of Michael Behe's testimony in the Kitzmiller trial that "astrology counts as science." Yes, the origins of astrology count as science, as a way of trying to explain phenomena observed in the world/universe. Alchemy could be the same. What happened to astrology and alchemy were not that they turned out to not be science, but that the explanatory power of the hypotheses did not bear out under examination. A person could still, using atom theory of physical matter, try to alter the structure of atoms of some other element and, by adding or subtracting the relevant particles, convert that element into gold (plus or minus whatever would happen to the left-over particles). I think it could still be regarded as a scientific endeavor, even though methods or principles of understanding would be different from what they were when alchemists began their original experiments.

If, however, one simply proposes a hypothesis and does not conduct any further examination of the hypothesis, and/or prevents others from investigating the hypothesis (and perhaps preventing investigation of other, competing hypotheses, or even proposing the hypothesis as something that is uninvestigable), the cdesign proponentsist has not made a scientific statement, but merely a dogmatic one.

#1496

[Listener]

Can someone help me here ....

As an atheist (probably for moral reasons), ID is not an option for me.

I'm convinced of the theory of evolution and am unlikely to be unconvinced. I'm very much in danger of following a dogma!

Why though is evolution "science" and ID "not science".

I was taught evolution by a convinced Christian who answered difficult questions (I thought they were difficult at 17 anyway) by saying "You can't leave God out of this!".

I'd like some help on "Is evolution science?"

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by maddog

If, however, one simply proposes a hypothesis and does not conduct any further examination of the hypothesis, and/or prevents others from investigating the hypothesis (and perhaps preventing investigation of other, competing hypotheses, or even proposing the hypothesis as something that is uninvestigable), the cdesign proponentsist has not made a scientific statement, but merely a dogmatic one.

Well, this entails that someone who proposes a hypothesis and then dies thereby counts as dogmatic. But I assume that's a hiccup in the precise wording you've used.

Even assuming that the lack of follow-up is voluntary, I'm not sure how dogmatism follows from, e.g., not conducting any further examination. Someone might propose a hypothesis; someone else might test it; the aggregate result will be canonical science in anyone's book. But the testing couldn't happen without the hypothesizing in the first place. So why would only the second step make it into the charmed circle of a "scientific statement"? The natural thing to say, I think, is that hypothesis proposal on its own terms is indeed eminently scientific, but that a lack of interest in knowing how hypotheses fare when tested is (other things being equal) not very characteristic of fruitful scientific practice.

I can't see any problem with saying that a person did something broadly scientific in stating a hypothesis, but never developed the idea in any very interesting way, and that the hypothesis was later explored and tested by others and found to be ill-formed or unwarranted. Why would we need anything stronger -- especially if it committed us to the existence of a sharp-ish boundary we are not plausibly capable of drawing?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Listener

I'm convinced of the theory of evolution and am unlikely to be unconvinced. I'm very much in danger of following a dogma!

I'm not sure I followed everything you wrote. But this, at least, is easily diagnosed. "Unlikely to be unconvinced" does not equal "following a dogma". If one is unlikely to be unconvinced because one's belief is based on overwhelming evidence, then there is no reason to attribute dogmatism.

I'm convinced that Mr and Mrs Clutch, Senior, are my parents, and am unlikely to be unconvinced. But I do not believe this dogmatically. I believe it on overwhelming evidence.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The natural thing to say, I think, is that hypothesis proposal on its own terms is indeed eminently scientific, but that a lack of interest in knowing how hypotheses fare when tested is (other things being equal) not very characteristic of fruitful scientific practice.

OK, if you prefer that.

#1497

[viscousmemories]

It read more like a well-supported argument than a statement of personal preference to me.

[maddog]

I don't think it's materially different from what I said. Doesn't read like a "well-supported argument" as much as an extremely carefully parsed proposal or definition.

#1498