IDEA in the Cornell Sun
This morning there was a pretty decent article by Nadia Chernyak in the Cornell Sun about the new intelligent design class offered here this summer.
. . .MacNeill first came up with the theme for the seminar when brainstorming with Prof. Will Provine, ecology and evironmental biology, for topics for this summer’s seminar class. MacNeill says that the idea was inspired by the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which the Dover Area School District in Dover, Pa. was sued for requiring the teaching of intelligent design in high school science classes."Given the Dover case, [Provine and I] thought it’d be interesting to teach [this year’s seminar] on Intelligent Design," MacNeill said.
MacNeill labels himself a "very vehement critic" of intelligent design but hopes to inspire debate and controversy in his classroom.
"I’m hoping I get people from both sides so that the discussion will be animated. The worst thing you can have is a dull seminar, which is what you have when people have the same belief or don’t believe in anything," he said.
As part of the attempt to present both sides of the issue, MacNeill has also invited Hannah Maxson ‘07, president of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness club, to help with the class. Questions from the students about books by Intelligent Design proponents will be fielded by Maxson. The class is currently capped at eighteen to keep it discussion-based, not a lecture, says MacNeill.
It appears that this is not MacNeill’s first delve into the topic of Intelligent Design. MacNeill is also on the IDEA list-serve, keeps consistent email correspondence with the club, holds debates about the issue and has invited the IDEA president to give a lecture in one his classes last year. MacNeill describes his relationship with the IDEA club as an "agreement in a very courteous manner to disagree."
"I’m glad it’s being offered," said Maxson. "Intelligent Design needs to be discussed more in academia and not just [as] some ‘frightening political movement’ that needs to be stopped."
Hannah is currently working with MacNeill to pull together intelligent design articles for the reading list. She’s also been invited to the discussions once the class starts to help "provide a cogent case for Intelligent Design theory."
IDEA Executive Director Seth Maxson also gives approval, saying that this "is an example of Intelligent Design being accepted as an intriguing scientific theory by the wider academic community."
The rest of the article can be found here.
IDEA Executive Director Seth Maxson also gives approval, saying that this “is an example of Intelligent Design being accepted as an intriguing scientific theory by the wider academic community.”
I am not speaking for MacNeill but I doubt that this is an example of ID being accepted let alone as a scientific theory. In fact, I’d argue that ID fails so far to present any scientific theory relevant to Intelligent Design.
Am I wrong here?
Comment by PvM — April 26, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
PvM - remember, MacNeill has ideas about design that is teleonomic, rather than teological. So the design he is looking for does not constitute “Intelligent Design”.
Comment by ivy privy — April 26, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Teleonomic: A goal-oriented process by a system unconscious of the goal.
TELEONOMY: the element of apparent purpose or possession of a project in the organization of living systems, without implying any vitalistic connotations. Frequently considered as a necessary if not sufficient defining feature of the living organization. (Maturana and Varela, 1979)
Comment by PvM — April 26, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
PvM– I think we need to make some distinctions here; Seth’s point was about it being considered an intriguing idea– which, note, is extremely different than a valid one.
As far as “science”– well, you’re bringing in the whole demarcation question; which we’ve dragged out forever in our IDEA discussions and I think decided was a pretty flawed argument; but if you want to provide a reason for why it isn’t science I can explain why we think it is.
But over here at Cornell we’re not really in the culture wars “take no prisoners” mindset which seems surprisingly prevalent outside our campus; mostly we like considering these ideas for what they’re worth. And the questions ID brings up are intriguing and I think worth considering.
Comment by Freawaru — April 26, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Seth’s quote pretty accurately portrays the misunderstanding of what ID has accomplished thus far: IDers have written a few books and gotten much PR on criticisms of evolution; no new scientific material over creation science; and citations of theological philosophy.
A more apt description would have been “being accepted as an intriguing bit of philosophy by religious apologetics.”
Comment by Dan — April 26, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
As far as “science”– well, you’re bringing in the whole demarcation question; which we’ve dragged out forever in our IDEA discussions and I think decided was a pretty flawed argument; but if you want to provide a reason for why it isn’t science I can explain why we think it is.
Remember what I said ? In fact, I’d argue that ID fails so far to present any scientific theory relevant to Intelligent Design.
So my argument is not as much that ID is not science, but rather that it is without any content or vacuous. Let me also address the demarcation argument which is so often used by IDers, while it may not always possible to determine what is science, this does not mean that one cannot determine what isn’t.
All you needed to do is show how ID is not scientifically vacuous…
But over here at Cornell we’re not really in the culture wars “take no prisoners” mindset which seems surprisingly prevalent outside our campus; mostly we like considering these ideas for what they’re worth. And the questions ID brings up are intriguing and I think worth considering.
Sure, hence my question. Why is it not worth considering?
Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 6:15 am
Would you help me parse this? ID is a scientific theory itself– or call it a hypothesis if that makes you feel better :). Or if you’re using it in the sense of a field, it’s just the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. Why do you think it’s supposed to present another scientific theory. Are you using ID and Intelligent Design as meaning different things here? Are you using Intelligent Design as meaning creationism?
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
‘IDEA Executive Director Seth Maxson also gives approval, saying that this “is an example of Intelligent Design being accepted as an intriguing scientific theory by the wider academic community.”’
The professor teaching this class has made clear that he does not think that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
The lack of honesty on your side is frustrating. Though of course creationists have been dishonest as long as I can remember (and I’m 52, so that’s quite a long time).
“If you’re using it in the sense of a field, it’s just the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.”
Tautological thinking of this sort is exactly why Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Don Baccus — April 27, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
“If you’re using it in the sense of a field, it’s just the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.”
I suppose it’s also worth pointing out that no such studying is actually done. Hands are waved - “that there flagellum’s irreducibly complex, neener neeger!”. When asked for evidence, Dembksi, for instance, has responded by saying “it isn’t our job to do the dirty work”.
Comment by Don Baccus — April 27, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
Don–
Would you point out the tautology?Dan–
What non-emperical evidence have we been discussing? Everything on ID I’ve seen is rooted in empericism.
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
ID is a scientific theory itself– or call it a hypothesis if that makes you feel better
ID may be a scientific theory or hypothesis what I am asking for such a scientific theory which is not scientifically vacuous. In other words, my position is simple: ID presently is scientifically vacuous because it uses a gap argument to infer something which cannot even compete with the Null hypothesis of ‘we don’t know’
“If you’re using it in the sense of a field, it’s just the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.”
That is NOT what ID is all about. It is about patterns in nature that cannot yet be explained by natural processes and/or chance. Often IDers conflate ID with the scientific detection of intelligence in Criminology, Archaeology etc and fail to appreciate that neither one relies purely on negative arguments. Criminology uses means, motives, opportunity, physical evidence, witnesses etc.
I suppose it’s also worth pointing out that no such studying is actually done. Hands are waved - “that there flagellum’s irreducibly complex, neener neeger!”. When asked for evidence, Dembksi, for instance, has responded by saying “it isn’t our job to do the dirty work”.
I agree, no effort has been spent on explaining why intelligence is somehow a better explanation for the flagellum than lets say ‘we don’t know’ or the various hypothetical pathways outlined by science. All IDers have to offer in response is: Well your pathways are not detailed enough. But what about their own pathways? Or is a positive ID hypothesis a ‘pathetic’ request as Dembski seemed to suggest?
I am still looking for a non-vacuous hypothesis of ID. How for instance can one say that ID best explains certain patterns? How has this been established in any non trivial cases?
Anyone?
Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
There is a very interesting thread at:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/04/id_and_theistic_evolution.php#more
that has some bearing on this topic. Specifically, there is a long discussion between several posters on whether “ID theory” is fundamentally different from “theistic evolution” (which is, IMO, indistinguishable from simple deism).
In particular, several of the posters have argued that if the two “theories” are equivalent, then there is literally no “science” in ID theory at all. That is, if God (remember, it’s easier to type than “the intelligent designer”) created the universe with just exactly the right set of natural laws that things like the bacterial flagellum could have evolved by purely natural processes alone (i.e. without further supernatural intervention), then that version of ID is indistinguishable from deism. In that event, both would be entirely without scientific value, since both ID and deism would thereby accept the operation of all natural laws as both necessary and sufficient to produce all natural objects and processes).
This means that if we are to distinguish between ID and deism (AKA “theistic evolution” = TE) it must be incontrovertably shown that natural laws as they now exist are insufficient to produce existing natural objects and processes. Once again, this requires proving a negative: that is, unless we assume that all known natural laws are literally all there are (as Lord Kelvin infamously did at the end of the 19th century), then it is possible that in the future new versions of purely natural laws will be discovered that can explain the existence of those entities now claimed to be possible only through supernatural intervention.
This, of course, leads to all kinds of logical fallacies, chief among them the problem of “supernatural incompetence.” If ID = TE, then God is indeed omnipotent and can create natural laws that make the evolution of all natural entities possible without further intervention. In that case, ID and TE are the same “theory” and nothing more need be said about either, and we can go on doing science (including evolutionary biology) the way we have up until now.
However, if ID is not TE, then perforce God must not be omnipotent; that is, He cannot create a set of natural laws that will in the fullness of time produce the objects and processes we observe around us.
Therefore, there are only two logical positions to take on this subject:
1) God is omnipotent and therefore created the universe with sufficient natural laws to allow for purely natural processes to produce all natural objects (and therefore IDT is unnecessary)
or
2) God is not omnipotent and therefore cannot create a universe in which natural laws are sufficient to produce all natural objects and processes, and therefore God (who is, by definition, incompetent) must intervene at specific times and places to alter nature in direct contravention of His originally created natural laws
These two positions have obvious and devastating implications for theology as well:
If (1) is the case, then God is only relevent to nature during it creation; from then on, He does not participate in it in any material way (and therefore prayer is useless, as all intercession by God violates His original created order), or
If (2) is the case, then God has left incontrovertable evidence of both His existence and actions in the structure of nature itself, and therefore faith is no longer necessary (and both justification and salvation through faith is pointless).
Comment by Allen Macneill — April 27, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Really? What studies were you citing? It seems to me that you just cite vague observations (e.g. bacterial flagellum, complexity that’s too overwhelming for laypersons to understand, etc.) and hand-waving information theory (e.g. CSI).
Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
“If you’re using it in the sense of a field, it’s just the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.”
Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form.
1. We claim that things we can’t explain [yet] in biology are best explained as the result of intelligence..
2. We look for examples of things in biology we don’t understand yet, and state that this proves the assumption.
That pretty much sums up the ID research program, right? Yes, I’m guilty of stripping it of fancy-sounding pseudo-math based on faulty assumptions, and high-falutin’ biochemical jargon, but I think I’ve captured the essence.
Comment by Don Baccus — April 27, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
I’d say that little of ID has an empirical foundation but I await your arguments.
Empirical
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
It would thus seem that if proponents of the intelligent design theory wish to be taken seriously by the scientific community, their most important challenge will be to show that intelligent design theory can be given an empirical foundation.
Empiricism and Design by Stephen Griffith
Several others have explored this lack of scientific content
Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
Ryan Nichols wrote:
Proponents of Intelligent Design theory seek to ground a scientific research program that appeals to teleology within the context of biological explanation. As such, Intelligent Design theory must contain principles to guide researchers. I argue for a disjunction: either Dembski’s ID theory lacks content, or it succumbs to the methodological problems associated with creation science-problems that Dembski explicitly attempts to avoid. The only concept of a designer permitted by Dembski’s Explanatory Filter is too weak to give the sorts of explanations which we are entitled to expect from those sciences, such as archeology, that use effect-to-cause reasoning. The new spin put upon ID theory-that it is best construed as a ‘metascientific hypothesis’-fails for roughly the same reason.
and Patrick Frank author of “On the Assumption of Design”, Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130 writes
Patrick Frank wrote:
Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic.
…
Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.
Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
There is an interesting paper by Murray I believe who argues that if ID cannot distinguish between stacking the deck (front loading) or intervention, and he argues that ID can’t then ID cannot add much scientific relevance to the mix.
Found the reference: Michael J. Murray, NATURAL PROVIDENCE (OR DESIGN TROUBLE). Faith and Philosophy
Recent work in Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) reopens a number of questions concerning God’s providence over nature. Friends of IDT claim that their “explanatory filter” allows us to detect design empirically and that this provides a way to make appeal to supernatural design in properly scientific explanations while at the same time undercutting methodological naturalism. I argue here that the explanatory filter is fatally flawed, and that detection of detection of design would not undercut methodological naturalism in any case. Friends of IDT fail to see this because they adopt a Newtonian conception of natural providence, while failing even to consider a preferable Leibnizian conception.
In his paper he argues
The claim here is that designed events can be caused by either intervention or deck-staking-plus-nomic-regularity (or something more complex if indeterminacy is relevant; see note 12 for more on this). If all we have access to is apparently designed outcomes, we cannot distinguish between those that result via “law” (deck-stacking) and those that result from “design” (intervention). Thus, we cannot engage in the project suggested by IDT advocates after all, namely, setting aside methodological naturalism and letting the explanatory chips fall where they may. The explanatory chips can’t discriminate between these competitors.
Interesting approach.
Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
Another example showing that Dembski is no fan of front loading follows from his claim that ID ‘predicts’ that Junk DNA has function. We all know the creationist history of this argument and yet IFF front loading were seen as a realistic ID argument by Dembski, he could not have made this claim. Remember that from the initial condition, evolutionary processes will take over. The presence of Junk DNA would therefor be theoretically similar to the present explanations and hypotheses. The idea that Junk DNA has function has no roots in ID unless it relies on the premise of a Christian God and even then the argument has no predictive value since creationists argue on one hand that God designed all life and that thus design was initially perfect, leading to the conclusion of no ‘junk DNA’ or Junk DNA will have function. Or they argue that Junk DNA can be explained by the Fall, leading to a deterioration of the genome.
Since ID provides no logical link between its scientific premises and its prediction about Junk DNA, the conclusion is inescapable, its prediction is guided by theology not science.
In other words ID cannot make predictions about “Junk DNA” which follow from their premise. All it can do is detect complex specified information and since junk DNA has no specified function yet, it cannot make any such predictions. Unless there is another premise which guides ID such as the efficiency of the Designer or the Designer’s Creation being perfect in the sense of no superfluous systems or DNA which has no function.
So either ID is vacuous scientifically or it makes predictions which follow from particular assumptions about the Designer. The latter one is contrary to ID’s approach and thus has to be rejected, unless one links ID to its historical and metaphysical roots.
Comment by PvM — April 30, 2006 @ 6:01 pm