A new book has been released attacking Intelligent Design. And by “new” I of course mean chronologically speaking, for its content is apparently the same old rhetoric (which won’t last much longer. As people begin to learn more about this issue, they’ll have give up the whole “ID is just creationism in disguise” bit). Below is a short review of the book from Family Research Council that’s worth a read:
The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have mounted yet another attack on the scientific theory of intelligent design, publishing an 89-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The new publication falsely equates “intelligent design” (a scientific theory which infers the necessity for intelligent design from scientific evidence) with “creationism” (a term usually used for a theory of origins that begins with the Bible or some other religious text). It also lumps together concepts of microevolution within species (such as the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria), which are not controversial, with the more contested theory of macroevolution, which seeks to trace all existing forms of life to a common ancestor. It appears to dodge altogether the crucial question of how living things could have arisen from non-living things in the first place. It also slanders intelligent design as “unscientific” despite peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism. Perhaps the biggest problem with the defenders of Darwinian evolution is that, ironically, they have reversed the roles in the supposed historical “war between science and religion,” by declaring Darwinism to be inerrant dogma, and punishing its doubters by burning them at the academic stake.
I wonder how many philosophers of science contributed to this book? Since the majority consensus in that field is that ID is a legitimate science (whether it’s good science is a different question), my guess is not many.
Intelligent design is a theory – but not a scientific one.
To question and to test is scientific. Peer reviewed articles do not make a scientific study – statistics, do.
Even Darwin’s origin of species is not scientific. It is more of an armchair philospopher’s findings which were shared to the world. Findings that could be replicated and then found to be statistically valid decades after Darwin’s death through science which was not available to him at the time.
Are their holes in Darwinism yes – but modern evolution does not stem solely from him alone.
We now have theories of punctuated equlibrium and genetic drift. Before one addresses the rise of life from non living, scientists are studying the connection between the life we know and how we are alike / different.
I suggest you read a little of the text before you write such a negative review. There are several pages of quotes from religious leaders who see no contradiction between evolution and religion. Likewise there are also quotes from scientists saying the same.
Sadly, the most famous ID stories have their origins in Creationism (i.e. Of Pandas and People – the text that led to the uproar in Pennsylvania – several drafts simply replaced creationist language with that of ID – this was proven in court). Until ID supporters can run a study where it can find data that be can validated hundreds of times by other researchers – it can not be considered scientific.
Hey Carl, thanks for the comment.
The question of whether or not ID is science is a second order question and lands in the realm of philosophy of science, not science itself. To explain what I mean, think of a language, let’s say Spanish. An expert in speaking Spanish has a huge Spanish vocabulary and knows all about how to conjugate verbs and so forth, but may know absolutely nothing about the etymology of Spanish words, the evolution of the language, etc. Such concerns would be second order questions ABOUT Spanish, not first order questions OF Spanish.
Similarly, biologists and chemists are not trained to answer the question “what counts as science?” They are trained in first order questions of science, not second order questions about science. And as I mentioned (albeit briefly), the majority of philosophers of science (religious and atheist alike) agree that ID is indeed a scientific theory. Now, that says nothing about whether or not it is true or false, nor does it say whether Darwinism is still a superior theory or not, but regardless of whether or not it is GOOD science, it is still science.
Moreover, I would simply ask whether you believe SETI, founded by the famous atheist scientist Carl Sagan, does legitimate science. SETI looks for signs of intelligence in the universe. How? By observing nature and distinguishing between events that are thought to be random or naturally caused, and those which bear the marks of an intelligent design. In this respect, the motivating rationale behind ID is no different than that of SETI (not to mention forensic science). No one questions the legitimacy of SETI, and I would contend that ID should be accepted upon the same grounds.
In regard to your last statement, I’m not really addressing what specific people may have done in specific situations (such as the various school board situations), but rather the general driving force behind the birth of the ID movement. Whatever can be said about the work of people like Phillip Johnson, it cannot be said that they merely repackaged creationism. Critics who make such claims are confusing the motivation for pursuing the work with the content of the work itself.
“Whatever can be said about the work of people like Phillip Johnson, it cannot be said that they merely repackaged creationism.”
Sure you can. Johnson’s work is based perceived problems with evolution stemming from his own inadequate knowlege of the subject. There is no positive evidence for design offered. Just like creationism with a capital “C”.
Science is a process with clearly defined methodologies. If ID wants to be considered a science they need to do some science. That means research and publish in the appropriate journals, not quote mine the work of actual working scientists. A quick pub med search on any aspect of Evolutionary Theory contrasted with any aspect of ID (if you can define one) will show where the work is being done.
ID is at best a half formed inference, not a hypothesis and certainly not a theory. It predicts nothing and explains nothing. No timeline, no defined design features, no posited mechanisms, nothing.
I almost find the young earth creationists a refreshing change from the weasels at the Discovery Institute. At least they have a story and they’re sticking to it.
Scripto,
“Sure you can. Johnson’s work is based perceived problems with evolution stemming from his own inadequate knowlege of the subject. There is no positive evidence for design offered.”
No, nor was that his intention. I picked Johnson as an illustration because he is considered by most to be the “father” of the ID movement, that’s all. His project was merely to critique certain presuppositions of Darwinian evolution (such as methodological naturalism). To call his work “repackaged creationism” is not just uncharitable, but downright misleading and evasive.
Whether or not his understanding of Darwinism (or its modern idealogical decedents) was inadequate isn’t really something I’m qualified to debate, however it seems perfectly obvious that naturalism is an unquestioned presupposition within the scientific community today, so insofar as he set out to critique that presupposition he seems to reflect a perfectly adequate understanding of the subject.
Thanks for the comment!
David,
I don’t see anyway around methodological naturalism when doing science. I don’t believe it is as much a philosophical position as it is a practical consideration. It works.
As far as I know Johnson has offered no functional alternative. Even if there were some evidence to conclude design there is no reason to believe that the design was done using anything but natural processes.