« Akyol Speaks At The American Jewish Committee Meeting | Main | Phillip E. Johnson's Comment on Akyol »
May 26, 2005
Intelligent Decline, Revisited
A reply to Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica
[Originally published in Tech Central Station]
"All truth passes through three stages," Arthur Schopenhauer declared. "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
As a proponent of the Intelligent Design (ID) theory, nowadays I am witnessing the first two stages simultaneously. And most recently I owe this to, among many others, Mr. Robert McHenry, who waged a powerful attack on ID and ID theorists in his recent TCS piece, Intelligent Decline.
Although the attack was adroit — and enjoyable to read — its arguments are not convincing. The scientists and thinkers who defend ID have fielded and effectively countered similar critiques many times over the past years. But since their responses have not infrequently fallen on deaf ears, let me re-explain them briefly.
Before commencing, however, perhaps I should say that I acknowledge and respect the intention of Mr. McHenry. His concern seems to be with keeping science separate from religion, and that is fully justified — mixing the two has resulted in pretty unpleasant episodes in history. Yet we, the "IDers" as they call us, are not trying to merge faith into science. What we are trying to do is actually rescue science from a monopoly of a secular faith called materialism, whose application to biology is called Darwinism.
In a nutshell, Intelligent Design is the theory that argues life on Earth is the product of natural laws, chance and intelligence. Darwinism, on the other hand, accepts only the first two causes, because, according to materialist philosophy, intelligence does not exist unless it evolves over time from mindless matter.
The materialist creation story, i.e., Darwinism, could have been true, and if that were the case, we all would have to come to terms with it. Yet whether that story is true or not is a legitimate question to ask. To find a scientific answer, we have to examine the scientific evidence. And when we do so, we find serious flaws in Darwinism, and, moreover, we detect intelligence in the origin of life on Earth.
Many critics of ID wrongly assume that we infer that intelligence from the Bible or the Koran, but in fact we infer it solely from nature. As Mount Rushmore compels an observer to conclude that an intelligent cause was at work there, the "specified complexity" of life points to an intelligent designer.
The identity or purpose of that designer can't be inferred from the evidence. That's why ID theory is silent on this subject, although we ID proponents might have personal opinions based on our philosophical or religious convictions. And that's why Mr. McHenry misses the point when he argues that we "have trained [ourselves] not to be too specific about the Designer" and we "carefully avoid" speaking about God for political purposes. The fact is that we just don't mix science and religion.
Yet Mr. McHenry is not receptive to inferring design from nature at all, and his objection stems from an argument from neophilia. "Philosophically this is old ground," he says and adds a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the work of the 19th century natural theologian William Paley.
Yes, Paley was also arguing for design, but what of it? Non-design is "old ground," too. It dates back to Ancient Greece. As theologian Benjamin Wiker unveils in his book, Moral Darwinism, the first theory of an un-designed and evolving world was developed by Epicurus, the founder hedonism. And his point of reference was not scientific evidence; he simply wanted to get rid of the idea of the divine, which he found disturbing. Epicurus' ideas about nature were later developed by Lucretius and much later by the modern forerunners of Darwin.
Another argument by Mr. McHenry against ID is that it is not "testable." Well, neither is Darwinism. Both theories talk about phenomena many millions, or even billions, of years old and never yet to have been observed occurring. That's why they constitute a specific area of science called "origin science." Also included in this realm is the Big Bang theory, which explains the origin of the universe. We definitely can't observe, test and repeat the Big Bang. We just infer it from the evidence. The same holds for ID, too.
Mr. McHenry also criticizes the reasoning we use to infer design in nature. He finds it intangible and asks, "Has the ID party discovered a scale by which this question [of complexity] can be answered?" The answer is "yes," of course! This is exactly what philosopher and mathematician William A. Dembski addresses in his theoretical work The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. It is a challenging but must read for all critics and would-be critics of ID.
Yet instead of addressing such cutting edge ID literature, Mr. McHenry refers to an "old ground" idea: the argument from imperfection. Why do we have unpleasant phenomena on Earth, he asks, such as tsunami, death, disease, killer asteroids, etc. Well, to argue that life is designed does not mean that the world is perfect. The Designer might have wished to create imperfections. As Dembski notes, "Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design." Moreover, the handiwork of the Designer might have been devolved due to the effects of natural laws and chance. (Oh yes, they cause devolution, not much of an evolution. See thermodynamics.)
Thus, the designer-should-have-done-better argument does not refute ID. But it does something else: It shows that it is the critics of ID, not its proponents, who bring philosophy and theology into a scientific controversy. The nature, ability and intention of the Designer are issues relating to philosophy and theology — not science — and just look who is bringing them to the science table.
Another problem in Mr. McHenry's piece is that he attaches to us some arguments that we don't make. We don't say, for example, "We don't know this yet; therefore, it is unknowable." As biochemist Mike Behe, the leading theorist of ID, repeatedly emphasizes, ID is not based on what we do not know. Rather, it is based on what we have learned in the recent decades.
Actually it is members of the Darwinian camp who employ arguments from ignorance: "We don't know how this evolved, but it must have been somehow" is the kind of answer they give to many complex questions such as the origin of life, biochemical systems, genetic code or the animal phyla. What we find curious is why they ardently presume that every unsolved puzzle will definitely be solved through a materialistic explanation. The only reason is "an a priori commitment to materialism," as the arch-Darwinist Richard Lewontin famously acknowledged a few years ago.
Once we replace the commitment to materialism with the commitment to objectivity, ID will be a very plausible explanation for biological origins.
Plausible for whom? one might ask. For the already converted? The Hallelujah choir and the mosque crowd? I don't think so. And one notable figure who would agree is the ex-arch-atheist Anthony Flew. After several decades of fierce resistance against Design, the famous British philosopher recently came to the third stage that Schopenhauer describes: He considered Design as self-evident.
Perhaps, just perhaps, one day Mr. McHenry can come to the same conclusion, too. The only thing needed is to follow the evidence where it leads. That is what we "IDers" do.
And this path, indeed, does not "decline" us and soak us into mud to turn into "mud man," as Mr. McHenry depicts us. But it does bring down upon us a lot of such ad hominem attacks. This is bearable because we know that Civilization — including the Western one — advances through people who stand for truth in the wake of fierce intimidation and opposition.
That very ferocity, in fact, displays nothing but the dogmatism of ID-haters. I hope Mr. McHenry will reconsider and decline to decline to such a poverty-stricken level of the intellect.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at May 26, 2005 11:26 PM
The study of the origin of the universe, life, and us is not science: it is a discipline. The distinction is not trivial. Far too many things are called science. Physics is a science. Astronomy is a science. Both of these make extensive use of mathematics. Whic is not a science, but a discipline. Mathemathics cannot create data for hypothesis testing. History is a discipline. Technology, logic and rational systems of and science may assist in the documentation of history, including yesterday, but it is not the center of discipline. Darwinian evolution , including it's offshoots, such as Gouldian Interrupts, are disciplines or in older English Philosphies. So is Intelligent Design. The orthodoxy required by the high school and undergraduate is as rigorous as that required of a neo-fasist Wahabiast.
The really interesting work on ID appears to be driven by micro-biology machines. See the work of Macosko for some of this.
Evolution simply means that there has been change over time. A Gould the attribution to that change of qualities of higher or better are external. Yep!
Posted by: Raymond Sandborgh at July 29, 2005 4:52 AM
AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
Adopted 20 September 2005
The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation’s K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.
In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design,” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Since “Intelligent Design” is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.
The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.
Posted by: Cedric at October 6, 2005 2:32 PM
"All truth passes through three stages," Arthur Schopenhauer declared. "First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."...
Having read the comment posting the AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, it sounds like the AAS are at step two. Keep goin' guys, you can make it!
Posted by: Dan at December 4, 2005 8:33 AM
What is immediately obvious about Mustafa's writing, despite the empty and threadworn expressions, are sincerity and high intelligence. What is also obvious are youth and naivety about science and life in general.
What always fails the religious mind is proportionality and equivalency. These two qualities are absent in the premises that ID believers wish to advance to refute those of modern science. The first deals with the ancient and non-falsifiable myths and superstitions that compose the world religions; the latter deals with scientifically supportable hypotheses that, together with thousands of supportable facts, comprise modern theories, like those of light, gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, tektonics, and evolution.
While the religionist prostrates himself before a an imagined deaf nonentity, too often heaping misery, violence, and ignorance upon the world, the scientist continues to lift up humanity and to offer genuine hope for an ever-improving human existence. Since the time of Newton and Darwin, while religion continues to put new spin on worn out beliefs, scientific progress continues it geometric progress.
As for Arthur Schopenhauer's pithy description about the arc of emerging truth -- one of millions, one must realize that "truth" in any absolute sense can rarely be established. And one must appreciate the profound difference in what a scientist advances as truth, such as how a race with evolution must be performed each year to arrive at life-saving vaccinations, and assertions like that of God's pleasure at flying airplanes into the New York Trade Towers or in the early Christian attempts to colonize and enslave much of the world in its own economic interest.
Darwin never broached abiogenesis, nor did he have the modern tools of biochemistry to even reflect on such mathematical and chemical abstractions. And the main bang, which produced the noise one hears on a radio when the signal is absent and which is viable as microwave background radiation could never have been known to him. What Darwin did was to be the first man to explain on a primitive level what the mechanics were of living organism on our speck of a planet (creation is ongoing).
Portions of a suffering humanity will continue to indulge in the comfort, customs and luxury of religious confabulation in proportion to ignorance and conformity in the world. To the extent that there are civilizations with advanced knowledge, scientific reasoning, and free-thinking, there will be science and secularism.
The notion of a creator exising in another dimension before time, space, and materiality, who thinks universes into existence is not a proposition that can ever be advanced as teachable and demonstrable truth.
Posted by: David Fredericks at February 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Regarding the previous post (David Frederic). The post is a case in point about the unsuccesful refutations towards Intelligent Design.
However, the post actually makes even sillier claims about the nature of the contributions of science.
The main contributions of science that everyone appreciates is the advance of technology, not the advances in "truth." Anyone familiar with contemporary philosophy of science knows that "realism" concerning scientific theories just one of many options about what constitutes good science.
Secondly, if one is going to consider the benefits to humanity ("While the religionist prostrates himself before a an imagined deaf nonentity, too often heaping misery, violence, and ignorance upon the world, the scientist continues to lift up humanity and to offer genuine hope for an ever-improving human existence") in terms of the role in technology in increasing wealth and human health, then it follows that it should also be judged in terms of the capacity of the new technology to destroy human health and destroy human lives (eg. pollution, weapons of mass destruction, etc.)
Now, I am not saying that his is how science ought to be judged, but you are and its fair to point it out and to demonstrate what follows from what you say.
I am not sure what your point is about the implausibility of a "The notion of a creator exising in another dimension before time, space, and materiality, who thinks universes into existence is not a proposition that can ever be advanced as teachable and demonstrable truth."
Are you suggesting that any claim about any subject that exists before time, space and materiality, ought not be taught? Then forget about also teaching mathematics and logic, since truths such as 1 + 1 = 2, and stuff such as modus ponens exist prior to any time or space, and are not dependent on any materiality, and yet these are taught across the word every day without controversy from people like you.
If you are suggesting that teaching about a creator is itself not worthwhile since he isn't material or subject to the laws of physics, then the Big Bang is not worth teaching about either since the laws of physics break down AT THE BIG BANG, at least according to the world leading scholar involve in this area (Stephen Hakwins).
The fact of the matter is, post like yours are filled with prejudiced views of what "religious people" are supposed to be like, with distorted views of what science is and how it operates, and will conveniently make statements when attacking intelligent design that fall apart under the slightest examination.
Posted by: Victor at April 13, 2006 11:25 AM
"Then forget about also teaching mathematics and logic, since truths such as 1 + 1 = 2, and stuff such as modus ponens exist prior to any time or space, and are not dependent on any materiality"
..... uh, WHAT?!!!
Posted by: Chris at June 13, 2006 9:06 AM
Cedric says,
"Even if there were no such agreement, �Intelligent Design� fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
This is exactly what is wrong with Darwinism. And it also happens to be a characteristic of string theory. The latter is about to change when the new collider comes on line in a couple of years. It may become possible to test parts of string theory. Three points: #1) Until it becomes possible to test string theory, is it to be banned from science class? The PBS special by Brian Greene had a raft of scientists like John Wheeler stating that string theory is not science. But ban it based on Cedric's criteria? Nobody calls for banning it. It is only ideas that support the hated religion that become banned.
#2) Science evolves, and someday it may become possible to test hypotheses about design. Do we ban ideas about design only until then? #3) What hypotheses about design have been presented to show it doesn't exist? Does science have a really good design detector? If so, when one points the detector at Mount Rushmore, does the detector give a positive or a negative on whether the monument is designed? If one then points the same detector at a pile of sand, does the detector give a different result? What? You say there is no such detector, no technique expounded in the scientific literature? Not even mathematics? How then can anyone claim that on the basis of mathematics and science there is no design? Oh, you say there is no actual claim on the the basis of mathematics and science? What then is the basis? belief in something other than science? Could it be that belief in naturalism that forms the *sole* basis for thinking ID is not science?
Posted by: white rose of science at January 15, 2008 5:25 AM
Where did you get the idea that evolution can not be falsified? Which aspect of it are you referring to, since there are many levels of evolution? Here are some headings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
...and let's not drag red herrings like string theory into this debate.
Posted by: emre at February 7, 2008 7:41 PM