When preparing something like this I always wonder exactly where to start in this argument. Do we start with an apologia of the scientific method? Perhaps I should list the errors in thinking of the unscientific hypotheses. I could begin with how science and religion should not be incompatible with one another. Yet, I think I will start at the very beginning with logic.
A very amusing aspect of lurking and posting in the ED is the number of times that I see the statement "prove this", demanding that it — proof, undeniable proof — must be done or the idea be discarded as useless. If we have a situation described by deductive logic then this is the way to go about matters: we construct the premises of our argument, we then apply whichever logical arguments and we come up with our conclusion.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.
Perfect.
Alas, as is always the case in life, it is not as simple when we start to talk about the world around us. The problem is that we no longer are in the realm of
deductive logic but
inductive. We are not able to introduce principles that exist universally, we have to infer things on the basis of what has happened before. For example, I have seen many swans in my life and they have all been white.
All the swans I have seen are white.
Thus, all swans are white.
Yay. We have a solution. Only not all swans are white, sadly — or perhaps happily, learning new things that advance understanding is good — there is a species of black swans in Australia. That is the problem with inductive logic: we have to be very careful about going from limited observations to a universal rule.
This is not the only problem on the horizon, we should consider the question about whether we are justified to believe that our inferences are correct. Why should we trust induction? I have already shown how induction can lead to wrong results, what if it entailed a more dangerous and life-threatening situation? How can we support the use of inductive logic? We are worried about it failing us and leading us to the wrong conclusion, we must justify our use of it. Perhaps we should argue that inductive reasoning about the world is justified because it works and leads to beneficial outcomes in general. On the surface this appears to be satisfactory but there is an insidious problem lurking in the shadows. We have stated that induction should be used for future reasoning because it has worked in the past: we trying to infer a universal statement from a limited observation. In a nutshell, we have to assume inductive reasoning is correct to justify the use of inductive reasoning! At this point the "circular reasoning" and "begging the question" alarms and sirens are wailing. Quite a little problem we have. Of course I cannot claim credit for this cute little insight, I have to give thanks to David Hume, the first to highlight the so-called "Problem of Induction". The shockingly scary thing about the Problem of Induction is that it means we have no rational basis for any of our action because we are forever making inferences about how events are going to unfold!
Now, David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher but as he was born after the 1709 Act of Union we should really consider him to be a British philosopher, something that causes much distress to modern Scots who always appear to be referred to as "British" in the British media when they succeed but are most definitely "Scottish" when they fail. I wonder if the same would have been said of Sir Karl Popper, the famous British philosopher who was really Austrian by birth, had he not been as successful?
Sir Karl, like David Hume, also has a tale to tell about inductive logic. Sir Karl recognised the Problem of Induction and how much it destroys the rational basis we use to make predictions about how the universe operates. He proposed that rather than make some observations and attempt to infer a universal rule, for that was how scientists were operating, we should revert to using hypothetico-deductive logic as a way of checking our ideas.
It works like this: if we have a hypothesis about the universe, H, then we state that if this hypothesis is correct it will entail some observation, O. Sir Karl realised that if we apply modus tollens then we can come to a conclusion.
If H then O.
Not O.
Therefore, not H.
There we have it, falsification. We should demand that our hypothesis lead to some observations we can make about the world. We then test to see if the observed effect is not there, if it is not there then we can rule out the hypothesis.
With this one vastly important cornerstone of the modern scientific method was put down: the ability to test and show a hypothesis to be false. We cannot prove that the hypothesis is true, that should be apparent because to infer that would making a universal claim from a limited set of observations — the problems with inductive logic strike — but we can rule out the chaff and remain with the wheat of ideas. We cannot ever prove that the hypothesis is correct, all we can ever do is continually check to see if the observed effects are what we expect. If they are not then we have a problem and we must reject the original hypothesis.
If we cannot find a way to show an idea to be false then we have a problem: how can we evaluate whether it is a good idea? Certain ideas simply cannot be checked, a very popular one is string "theory". The string hypothesis suggests that all matter and forces can be represented as a more fundamental layer of matter know as strings. These strings can vibrate at different rates and give rise to all of physics as we understand it. Or that is the idea. A huge gaping, bleeding, mortal wound in the case for strings is that we simply cannot test for them, we cannot formulate a scenario where we would be able to check the universe as say: "yes, this is compatible with strings because if we did not see this then it must surely be false." At this time, strings are not scientific and no one would countenance teaching the hypotheses in a science class to children: it simply does not have the evidence to support it. Lots of pretty mathematics with people — namely string theorists with intravenous coffee drips to keep the caffeine levels high — saying "it makes so much sense" is fine and dandy but it is not science. Perhaps in the future when we have more powerful particle accelerators we will be able to reach the energies where strings would begin to have a noticeable effect on the world. As it stands strings are an exercise in mathematical research with new avenues in mathematics being discovered and keeping people partially happy. "People" being the funding bodies who are the lifeblood of academic research. It is still not science. Protoscience if we are to be generous, it could be scientific at a later date with more powerful testing machines.
String theories could open up a complete restructuring of how we understand the universe if we can find the evidence to support their existence. This is a Good Thing in science, breaking down old models and establishing a new paradigm has rewards. If you are really good then you get an all-expenses paid trip to Stockholm and a nice fat cheque. Lots of money could be a good motivator for people to get their ideas tested so they can cross their fingers and hope they are nominated; thus, I would expect that people who really could reshape the scientific landscape, the Intelligent Design crowd, are paying attention and are reading their pencils, computer simulations, chemical equations and all else for the race to this Prize.
So what about Intelligent Design? Can it be tested? That is the important question. We need to be able to construct a way where, should Intelligent Design be correct, something must be observed. For if it is not then Intelligent Design simply does not describe the universe. People may point to instances of irreducible complexity but that is a devious argument. Irreducibly complexity argues that, while undesigned evolutionary theory can propose how many systems develop, there remain some systems that simply could not have developed without the aid of design. This is really an argument from ignorance, it presupposes that undesigned evolutionary theory cannot be responsible for this process because we currently cannot explain it: we may be able to do so in the future. Simply because undesigned evolutionary theory is not able to explain it does not imply that design was responsible. We could find an undesigned method in the future and the supposedly irreducibly complex system would no longer be so. Thus, irreducible complexity is not a test of design. Nay, even if we found no instances of irreducible complexity it would not imply that design was not responsible.
What is the test? That is what we are waiting for. If there was a way to test it and we simply had not been able to check then Intelligent Design would be worthy of scientific study but not the classroom. Alas, unless a
means of testing is proposed then Intelligent Design fails a crucial aspect of modern science itself! How could it ask for scientific funding when it is not able to say how it is scientific? This is a question I would like answered. The thesis is that Intelligent Design supporters are being shut up or fired for their views. Along with this being a distortion of events — people should not be fired merely for considering design and that does not appear to be the case anyway — what basis is there for Intelligent Design to be given funding opportunities? It is not science! It does not qualify for limited resources designated for scientific study. I would not ask for money for scientific research from arts funding bodies. Or maybe scientists should run cap in hand to arts bodies given the 2008 Omnibus bill but that is another matter entirely.
Though, perhaps I am being harsh. No doubt there are some muttering about how I am a dirty materialist and that I am biased as result. My first response would be to point out that I have had a shower in the past 5 hours. The second would be to correct my critics and point out that I am a
methodological naturalist: I assume naturalism purely for practical reasons, I am not saying that naturalism is ontologically true. I am not denying the supernatural, it could exist.
Methodological
naturalist, mind you, not naturist; that would lead to some very awkward lab sessions. Why do we assume naturalism in science? The answer is quite simple, the supernatural cannot be subjected to testing. Above nature, how could we ever test it? Experimentation is the bread and butter of science so we only consider solutions that we can test.
You see, in order for Intelligent Design to be admitted as scientific we would have to rewrite what it means for something to be scientific, we would have to remove the restriction of methodological naturalism. "Good!" Some may proclaim, "because the truth of the matter may be that the supernatural explanations are the correct ones and keeping science restricted to the natural is myopic." I have some sympathy for this argument but it does not convince. Science is not about
truth, science is about finding which models best describe the universe as we observe it and allow us to successfully predict the future with relative accuracy. We assume naturalism because we must be able to test, we must be able to test because we have to be able to side-step the fundamental problems with human inductive thinking. The price for this is truth. Science provides naturalistic models of the universe and only guarantees that they are the best models we have at this moment in time. It does not guarantee that the actors in the model ontologically corresponded to objects a mind-independent universe: the "true" state of affairs. Scientific realists may claim that science corresponds to this true state but that is a philosophical position and not a scientific one.
Why do this? Mainly because the truth may not be useful. Science has allowed amazing technological developments that have allowed humanity to improve itself. Modern medicine, increasingly advanced electronics and computers, Hello Kitty vibrators, the list goes on. If it really did all amount to a simple "we were designed" what benefit would this insight bring? If you are unable to say something new about the way the universe operates then how it can it be used to our gain? Nay, constraining scientists to the natural forces science to only accept models that provide a better description of the way the universe appears to function. With more successful ways to predict what happens we can develop more successful ways to manipulate the universe for our benefit.
As science does not purport to give a true description of the universe and merely a useful one, there is no basis for Intelligent Design to redefine it just in the possible event that design is correct. It may well be correct but until it becomes testable it just is not science. If it is not testable then it confers no demonstrable benefit and understanding to humanity as a species. Just not science. Things that are not science do not get scientific funding.
If you get this far then I congratulate you. I dearly hope that I did not ramble too much or become too pompous in tone. I also hope I have convinced some of the reasons why Intelligent Design should not be considered as scientific, why it should not expect scientific funding as it is not scientific, and why redefining the meaning of science to allow it is foolhardy.
One final point. Much has been made of academic freedom. I shall leave with the words of someone more intelligent than I am.
"I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the Church would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission".
Academics are free to research but they must always respect the fundamental philosophy underpinning their field. Science is no different. In this debate we would do well to remember this.
