NOT EVEN CLOSE
Izzy points to a pretty ignorant essay on what is and isn’t science. A taste:
For a topic or subject to be deemed science it must be measurable, experimentally reproducible or studied in some quantitative way.
…The study of science is the study of those topics that are suited for investigation by the scientific method (some scientific way). Topics like chemical interaction, biological processes, genetic variation, the fossil record, geology, population dynamics, etc. – all lend themselves to scientific evaluation. Both evolution and creation have reasonable theories that encompass these (and many, many more) scientifically evaluated topics. Students should be exposed to this ongoing debate so they can form their own opinions following a thorough evaluation of the scientific evidence.
Some scientific way? Good summary.
Here’s my nickel explanation of what science is and is not. Science is a rational process which attempts to explain the physical realities of the universe we observe. It is not a religion. It does not invoke non-natural explanations for the universe. It is absolutely silent on the existence or non-existence of God. So, ID is not science, and neither is it’s purer form, creationism. Neither belongs in a g-school science class.
BTW, the author is a home educator.
13 Responses to “NOT EVEN CLOSE”
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 16th, 2005 at 11:09 am |
That’s a start – only a small number of logical fallacies in your reasoning. And, your definition is not fully consistent with your interpretation of it. How about revision 2? Your definition is similar to that found at the NCSE (National Center for Status quo in the teaching of Evolution) “Science and religion are different. Scientific explanations are based on human observations of natural processes; these explanations may be changed or abandoned as additional facts are discovered. Science does not claim that God does not exist. However, whether or not scientists believe in God, by the very definition of science, they cannot offer God´s intervention as the explanation for whatever they seek to explain.” The problem with this definition, of course, is that it disallows certain explanations. It says that even if an intelligent agent is responsible, science cannot point to that intelligent agent as a cause. Consequently, science is in a position to invoke spontaneous generation, as if that is somehow more scientific. According to this definition, the scientific method could not be used to determine if “Romeo and Juliet” was authored by an intelligent agent, if limited to purely forensic methods. Instead, science would be constrained to show how the text originated naturalistically. Of course that’s silly, and so is this definition of science. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi July 16th, 2005 at 11:21 am |
And where, pray tell, are my logical inconsistencies? I stated that science attempts to explain the physical universe. |
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 17th, 2005 at 1:27 pm |
For starters, you setup a strawman by relating ID and Creationism so that you can discredit ID more easily. Anyhow, here’s another example. Someone breaks into your house and leaves a written message on the whiteboard by your refrigerator and then leaves. Other than the message on the whiteboard , there is no additional physical evidence that can be collected. According to your definition of what science is not, the scientific method would not be applicable to help determine the source of the message if the source is an intelligent agent. OTOH, according to your definition, science could be applied to determine how such a message could spontaneously appear via purely naturalistic means. So, IMHO, your definition seems to impose a philosophical limitation on what science can consider. Rather than following the evidence regardless of where it may lead, your definition limits what science can do, without a rational basis for doing so. I am not an expert on this topic by any stretch, but Nancy Pearcy is, and she discusses this centuries old debate in her book “The Soul of Science.” |
![]() Comment by speedwell July 18th, 2005 at 8:49 am |
“For starters, you setup a strawman by relating ID and Creationism so that you can discredit ID more easily.” For finishers, you lie about the obvious, patent, and freely admitted relation between ID and creationism so you can pretend to have a case. |
![]() Comment by Daryl Cobranchi July 18th, 2005 at 9:22 am |
Thanks, speedwell. Of course ID and creationism are related. Back in the late ’70s it was known as “scientific creationism.” The SCOTUS struck down attempts to teach it in the g-schools as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The creationists went back to the drawing board and re-christened the movement “Intelligent Design.” They now refuse to name who that Designer must have been. But it’s pretty obvious. |
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 18th, 2005 at 2:32 pm |
I appreciate your concerns regarding the motives of the ID folks, the atheists and the creationists. Science has to be careful regarding metaphysics… Unfortunately, you can’t define science to address specific aspects of those concerns, while favoring others. That’s why my examples are worded the way they are. To be clear, your definition favors a science that would look only for a naturalistic cause for the message on the whiteboard. That’s not neutral, that’s bias. Ad-hominems, BTW, are resorted to by debaters when they can’t defend their position. So anyone reading this who has any background in rhetoric will see Speedwell’s reply as very weak indeed. The key proponents of creationism and ID (ICR and Discovery Institute) have explained their positions very clearly on the topic of the definition of science. Equating them in this manner is not valid, unless you choose to ignore their stated positions and create a strawman that is easier to attack. My examples were intended to help you see the distinction between evidence of design vs identifying the designer. Those are two separate questions. ID is working towards methods that can detect signs of intelligence, regardless of what the nature of the intelligence is. Creationism in its most common form is of the biblical variety which says that God is the creator. You seem to be unable to apreciate the difference. Is that correct? |
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 18th, 2005 at 4:40 pm |
“It is absolutely silent on the existence or non-existence of God. So, ID is not science…” This is a non-sequitor. ID does not concern itself with the existence or non-existence of God. But, what concerns people, especially atheists, is that some ID proponents do believe that the intelligent designer is God. (But, then, many evolutionists believe in God as well, and they are labeled theistic evolutionists) OTOH, many ID proponents do not believe in the God of the Bible. So, you have to be careful, otherwise you are discriminating against people with specific beliefs that you find philosophically trouble-some, even though their science is perfectly acceptable. (E.g., my whiteboard example) So, your next fallacy is this “appeal to fear” (based on that controversial strawman) that if we let ID’s foot in the door, it will lead to science allowing God to be invoked as the cause of things that we do not understand. This is a valid concern, but you can’t define science this way because there are questions that are outside of the orgins debate that you affect in a negative way. And because of that, your definition needs to be refined. BTW – Read Nancy Pearcy and others on this topic. There is general agreement by reasonable people on both sides of the debate that what you are tring to do cannot be logically defended. (That doesn’t mean your concerns are invalid!) |
![]() Comment by Daryl July 18th, 2005 at 9:04 pm |
I don’t have time to get into this in any depth (I’m on a borrowed dial-up) but I do ignore their stated positions as I believe they are disingenuous at best. ID is creationism in sheep’s clothing. Face it. It was “created” as a ruse. I’ll give you something to chew on. As limiting as my definiton may be, ID doesn’t qualify as a science under ANY definition. It isn’t testable. It doesn’t even ask any questions. When they come up to something they don’t understand, the “scientists” have the easiest out in the world– God the “Designer” made it that way. Geez I wish I could have had it that easy in grad school– Show how H-Psi equals E-Psi? I don’t have to show it; that’s how God made it. Poor scientists and poor intellects. |
![]() Comment by Daryl July 18th, 2005 at 9:06 pm |
Oops. “God” above was supposed to be sarcastically struck. That html code apparently doesn’t work in the comments. |
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 19th, 2005 at 12:12 am |
ID folks may be misguided, but I seriously doubt that they are being dishonest. The most objective, balanced writing on this topic is coming from the ID folks like Stephen Meyer, Phillip Johnson, Nancy Pearcy, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Dean Kenyon. They are significantly more honest than evolution’s apologists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould. Also, let me turn things around on you a bit. Just because you can’t envision tests for detecting intelligent causes does not mean its not possible. Going back to my example of the message – we know that the message has an intelligent cause – now all we need is a litmus test that gives us good statistical probability that the cause was intelligent rather than naturalistic. |
![]() Comment by speedwell July 20th, 2005 at 8:58 am |
“Going back to my example of the message – we know that the message has an intelligent cause – now all we need is a litmus test that gives us good statistical probability that the cause was intelligent rather than naturalistic.” No, all we need is convincing evidence that your “example” about the “message” is relevant to the discussion, instead of being a red herring. I can say, for example, “ID is scientific because Krishna is blue,” but the color of the god doesn’t have anything to do with ID or with science, and neither does your example. Oh, and you’re still a liar if you deny the connection between ID and creationism. The Kansas trials were adequate evidence for anyone who was listening. (Were you listening? Or did you have your fingers in your ears?) Personal attacks are only ad hominem fallacies if they’re wrong, dude. If you roll around in a cat box for an hour, and (despite the fact that I didn’t actually see you drop and roll and can’t identify the smell) I tell you you stink, that isn’t a fallacious statement. |
![]() Comment by Anonymous Coward July 20th, 2005 at 10:22 am |
Its relevant because ID is about detecting “intelligent” causes. Think SETI. Regarding Kansas, who cares? The discussion is about definitions of science. There will always be people with an agenda. BTW, when you refer to Kansas, you are using “appeal to fear” and “avoiding/changing the subject.” |
![]() Comment by Anonymous July 20th, 2005 at 5:57 pm |
Hey Speedwell, |