Is intelligent design scientific?

The homepage for INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND SCIENCE
includes Sections 1-3 and this page has Section 4:
1. What is a theory of intelligent design? 
2. Intelligent Design as an inclusive Big Tent 
3. Implications for Apologetics & Natural Theology 
4. Can intelligent design be authentically scientific? 
      Introductory Overview: Why are so many so confident? 
      Can we find scientific support for (or against) design? 
      Why doesn't Intelligent Design publish in science journals? 
      Can intelligent design be useful in science, now or in the future? 
      Is rigid methodological naturalism useful (or even essential) in science? 

In this page, Section 4 asks a general question — Can a theory of Design be authentically scientific? — in the five smaller questions you see above.  A related question — Are theories of Design supported by the current scientific evidence? — is examined more closely in EVALUATIONS OF EVOLUTIONS.  All of these questions (and others from Sections 1-3) are related, and most authors look at more than one aspect of design.  But an author usually looks at some questions more closely than others, and thus the five sub-sections in this page.

an I.O.U. — Although summary-overviews (plus links to many valuable web-resources) are already in this page, in June/July 2008 we'll look for additional web-resources.
 

 
      4. Can intelligent design be authentically scientific?

      An Introductory Overview — Why are so many so confident?
      To help us understand the intensity of emotions during discussions of design, we can think about a model of science proposed by Larry Laudan involving mutual interactions between goals, methods, and theories.  Most people want their own ideas — including their VIEWS OF SCIENCE (goals, methods, theories) and their VIEWS OF THE WORLD (used for living in the world) — to be logically consistent.  This desire for consistency produces mutual interactions within their framework of ideas (about science, worldviews,...) with each influencing the others, producing adjustments that improve the overall logical harmony of their framework.
      One result of this internal self-consistency is that vigorous advocates for each view of origins are confident that they have The Answer, and those with other views seem so obviously wrong (because their ideas don't fit logically into our framework) that they must be either deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others.
      Often the result is sharply contrasting views about the foundations of rationality, about the kind of arguments that are persuasive, or even allowable.  When two sides cannot even agree about the ground rules of arguing, we shouldn't be surprised when they "talk past each other."  They aren't trying to listen, learn, and understand, since they're in a "debating mode" and are just trying to win.

      In an effort to improve the situation, this website tries to promote accurate understanding and respectful attitudes by helping readers get the best arguments from all sides, and recognize that sometimes people on "the other side(s)" do have some rational reasons for their views.
      One example of a productive approach is The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate.  In this excellent book, Del Ratzsch explains how "arguments that should not persuade constitute an unfortunately high proportion of the popular artillery on both sides."  Because "the popular caricatures that reign in this area... make confident choice appear supremely simple" there is a tendency "for favorite ideas — on both sides — to be credited within their respective camps with a status they really do not deserve.  Indeed, each side can see the case as so utterly closed that the very existence of opponents generates near bafflement."  Instead, Ratzsch encourages us to "carefully study, with an open mind, the evidence and logical counter-arguments presented by opponents, in an attempt to accurately understand the logical support for other positions and why someone might hold these positions, to see what things look like from another point of view."
      In Design Theory and its Critics: Monologues Passing in the Night, Del Ratzsch reviews an 800-page book edited by Robert Pennock, and provides an overview of ideas — about Naturalism (Methodology and Beyond), Science & Substance, Theology — and attitudes. (45 k)   Since he is reviewing a book that is strongly anti-ID, Ratzsch defends the rationality of ID.  But he (and you) could do a similar critique of pro-ID arguments, to defend the rationality of some counter-arguments against ID.
      Another example of trying to accurately describe the strong and weak aspects of proposals from both sides (and thus avoid a "debating mentality") is Loren Haarsma asking "Is intelligent design scientific?" and answering "yes and no" — YES in some ways, NO in some ways, and MAYBE in others.

      Why do most people usually say "YES!" or "NO!" but rarely "yes and no"?
      • It's partly due to the intellectual simplicity of an all-or-none position, with a desire for internal self-consistency, for believing that all of the most rational arguments support their own view.
      • Another reason for simplicity of positions — and intensity of emotions — is the practical importance of the questions being debated, especially for their potential applications in education:

      Intelligent Design in Education?
      Most proponents of Intelligent Design want their view to be represented in education, either directly (by teaching ID as an alternative to evolution) or indirectly (by including evidence both for and against evolution).  And most opponents of ID want to keep it out of public education.  Two strategies for excluding ID are to criticize it philosophically and say "ID isn't even science," or criticize it scientifically and say "ID is bad science," or both.  These arguments are then used to claim that in the science classroom we should teach only science (but ID isn't science) or only the best science (but ID isn't the best).
      For example, George Gilchrist claims that ID has low scientific status (or no status) because ID isn't published in science journals and he concludes his page with a claim about educational policy: "Until intelligent design theory can be shown to have any status as a scientific theory of biological organization, it has no place in a biology curriculum."
      Intelligent Design is a major theme in ORIGINS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS which looks at Freedom and Responsibility, Legality and Constitutionality, Methods of Teaching, and Educational Policies, with pro-ID and anti-ID arguments, including philosophical and scientific criticisms of both Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinian evolution, plus questions about religion.   Later, ID will also be a theme in pages for ORIGINS EDUCATION in Christian settings (in church, private schools, and home schools) and informal situations (in websites & newspapers, television & movies,...).

      Can we find scientific support for (and against) intelligent design?
      By using the methods of science, can we detect the results of intelligent design (and thus infer a process of design-action), in principle and in practice?
      This question requires four answers because, as explained in Section 1 of INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE, there are four types of intelligent design:  • design of nature,  • undetectable design-directed guiding of natural process, and  •• detectable Design-directed action by a natural agent (•) or supernatural agent (•).  In Sections 1-3 and in this page, Intelligent Design (or ID or Design) — when capitalized — refers to a claim for detectable Design-directed action, while intelligent design (or design) can refer to any of the four types of design, depending on context.

      Intelligent Design involves detectable Design-action, which in principle we could potentially detect using the methods of science, but in practice could we actually detect it?  And why do all scientists think we can infer Design-action by a natural agent, but many don't think we could detect Design-action by a supernatural agent?
      All of us confidently claim to intuitively detect design when we observe a system (a house, newspaper, radio, radio show, car,...) with parts that seem to have been carefully organized to achieve a purpose.  Although we all agree that some types of design can be detected, there is disagreement about claims for Design in biology.  Claims for the scientific detectability of Intelligent Design in biology are generally defended in three ways:
      • through an appeal to the logic of mutual exclusion:  because a feature was produced by either non-Design or Design (when these are properly defined), if we scientifically determine (using the standard methods of science) that it probably did not occur by non-Design, then we should conclude (using simple either-or logic) that it probably did occur by Design.
      • in a related method, Design theorists (led by William Dembski) claim that observable "signs of Design" can be scientifically detected if analysis of information shows there is significant specified complexity.
      • an argument by analogy claims that because we can use logic (based on mutual exclusion) and/or analysis (of information) to scientifically detect design-directed action by natural agents (Dn) in non-biological systems, in a similar way we could detect the design-directed action of a generic agent (either natural or supernatural) in biological systems.

      The proponents of Design are confident that their scientific analysis, based on mutual exclusion and complex specified information, is logical and should be persuasive.  But proponents of non-Design vigorously disagree, claiming that these methods are not scientific and therefore should not be allowed in science, or that the results of evidence-based analyses are do not support claims for Intelligent Design.  

      There is also disagreement about the standards for acceptance Is plausibility sufficient, or is proof required?
      For most questions about the history of nature, currently the evidence for non-Design is strong and a confident conclusion is scientifically justifiable.
      But for a few questions the evidence-and-logic is less clear, and saying "we can't be sure at this time" seems justifiable.  For these difficult questions, is a binary decision (YES or NO) really necessary?  Instead, it seems more rational to assign differing levels of plausibility to claims that, for the origin of a particular feature, Design-directed action "is almost certain" (we could say "this bold claim is not justified") or "is sufficiently plausible to be seriously considered as a possibility" (this modest claim is more justifiable) or "is more than 50% probable so it should be an inference to the best explanation" (we can argue about the estimate of "more than 50%").
      What should we conclude if a scientific evaluation is not conclusive, and why?  When we're comparing theories of Design and non-Design, which has "the burden of proof" (and how much proof is required) and which gets "the benefit of the doubt" (and how much doubt is allowed)?  Or should we temporarily postpone a yes-or-no conclusion?

• Can a theory of Intelligent Design be scientifically detected and evaluated? by Craig Rusbult, is a summary (10 k for Section 7B) that explains the logic of mutual exclusion, scientific methods for evaluating Design, two possible effects of future science, thinking about plausibility instead of proof, and combining scientific & philosophical evaluations.   {more generally, Sections 5A-7A and 7C-7D are also relevant for thinking about ID, with an extra 45 k}
• [IOU: we'll find counter-arguments, either custom-written specific responses or already-written general arguments]
• Miracles, Intelligent Design, and God-of-the-Gaps by Jack Collins, explains the difference between science-gaps (due to our inadequate knowledge) and nature-gaps (where natural process couldn't produce a feature) and claims that science might be able to detect a nature-gap  (29 k + 22k)  

• In the first three pages of ARN's FAQ — What is ID? How can we detect ID? How does ID apply to biology? — Mark Hartwig contrasts the intuition-based Design argument of Paley with modern methods (based on specified complexity) for detecting Design.  (14 k total)
• The second half of the TalkDesign-FAQ (beginning with "What are the 'scientific' arguments used to support Intelligent Design?", 15 k) explains why scientific reasoning does not support the claims made by ID.   Jay Richards disagrees, and in his overview of what ID is and isn't he explains why "the more scientifically sophisticated we get, the stronger the argument for intelligent design."  (10 k)
• [IOU: we'll find Dembski description of specified complexity,... (some possibilities are at end of page) and counter-arguments (from TalkOrigins or TalkDesign?)

• then cite specific areas (for pro-and-con) in bio-e, chem-e, design of nature

a reminder from the introduction:  In every subsection, above and below, those who are enthusiastically pro-ID or anti-ID both use adjustments within their framework of ideas (about worldviews, goals, methods, theories,...) to generate a bold confidence that they have The Answer which leads to "sharply contrasting views about the foundations of rationality, about the kind of arguments that are considered logical and persuasive, or even rational and allowable."

      Why doesn't Intelligent Design publish in science journals?
      Do advocates of Design publish in peer-reviewed science journals?  And if not, why not?

• The basis for this argument against ID-in-Science is outlined in The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design by George Gilchrist: "Because professional scientists must publish their work to retain their jobs and to obtain funding, the relative status of intelligent design theory and evolutionary theory can be assessed by comparing their frequency of usage in the professional scientific literature. ...  Is intelligent design theory actually used by scientists?"  He looks at the literature and says NO, "if any science supporting these views has been done, it is quite well hidden."  And he concludes his page with an application for education.
• Some alternative explanations are in an FAQ from IDEA-Center, Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?  (four short answers in 2 k, four long answers, and a conclusion quoting William Dembski, total is 103 k)

EXPELLED (the movie!) claims to show strong anti-ID pressure in the community of scientists.
• The ASA Homepage is now featuring this controversial movie, with links to a wide range of views from prominent organizations (NCSE, AAAS, Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe) plus discussions on the ASA-list, comments from the Executive Director of ASA (Randy Isaac, who says "Ben Stein stressed simplicity and actively avoided complexity [which is the main theme of expert science/religion scholars like John Hedley Brooke] in the movie... a veneer of superficial truth masked a wealth of complexity that was ignored presumably to avoid confusing the audience"), a comprehensive essay by Jeff Schloss (The EXPELLED Controversy: Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?), and responses from ASA members.
• Academic Freedom and Evolution by Casey Luskin  (5 k)
• IOU — more from each view will be here later, by August 2008

• Paradigm Shifts in Geology (Geosynclinal Theory & Plate Tectonics) and Biology (Darwinism & Intelligent Design) by John Wiester, asks if these situations — in the history of geology and in current biology — are analogous.  (10 k + 2k)

• In the late 1990s, Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, published in 1996) submitted papers to science journals, but his papers were always rejected.  In 2000, he documented his experiences in Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to Critics Concerning Peer-Review.  (21 k)
• Why is Intelligent Design not published in science journals? by Craig Rusbult, is a summary (with commentary) of Behe's "correspondence" page.  (16 k)
• IOU — responses to this will be found or will be written by others

• What happened when the editor of a science journal (Richard Sternberg) published a pro-ID paper by Stephen Meyer?  There was lots of excitement, as described in Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by Barbara Bradley Hagerty for National Public Radio  (4 k)
• Researcher claims bias by Smithsonian by Joyce Howard Price for Washington Times  (4 k)
• Deja vu All Over Again by Chris Mooney, who compares two papers (in climate science & evolutionary biology) and says "proponents of a fringe... scientific viewpoint seek added credibility" but haven't earned it.  (10 k)
• Science's New Heresy Trial: A Smithsonian-backed editor is defrocked by the priesthood of science for publishing an article on Intelligent Design, by Gene Edward Veith.  (5 k)
• The HomePage of Richard Sternberg with the journal-editor's summaries (6 k) of the publication and results.
• ID Paper Continues to Attract Scrutiny by the National Center for Science Education, summarizes (in 7 k) four articles — from Nature, Chronicle of Higher Education, Science, and by Chris Mooney — and links to its own pages and The "Meyer 2004" Medley (with links and blog-responses) from Panda's Thumb, plus a two-part response (11 k & 38 k) by Discovery Institute, home base of the author, Stephen Meyer.

And more generally (beyond just ID in journals) eventually we'll have a separate links-page devoted to "evaluations in science" because this is an important topic that deserves to be examined more carefully, in more depth and breadth.  Most scientists are interested in the complex factors affecting acceptance or rejection of papers (and grants), and many scholars — especially those who study science and scientists from the perspectives of history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology — are interested in the effects of the cultural-personal factors that operate in a complex social context involving individuals, the scientific community, and society as a whole.

      Can Intelligent Design be useful in science?
      When we ask "Can ID be useful in science?" this is similar to asking "Does ID belong in science?", and this section is an overview of rational arguments for including Intelligent Design in science, and rational arguments for excluding it.  In other sections the ideas — about scientific methods, publishing in journals, and methodological naturalism — are more specific and focused, but there is overlap, and in all sections most authors discuss a variety of questions about Design in science.  Here are some of the many questions we're exploring:
      Is a search for truth (about nature and its history) an important goal of science?  Or should we focus on practical usefulness in scientific research, in stimulating productive experiments and theoretical analysis?  What is the relative importance of a theory's plausibility (whether it seems likely to be true) and its utility (for stimulating scientific research)?  What are the goals of science, and what methods & theories will help us achieve these goals?  And what are the mutual interactions between goals, methods, and theories?
      What are the arguments for and against including Intelligent Design in science?  Which arguments, both for and against, do you think are the best and most persuasive?
      In all parts of DESIGN IN SCIENCE, in the first page (Big Tent,...) and throughout this page, you'll see "contrasting views... about the kind of arguments that are considered logical and persuasive, or even rational and allowable."  For example, when asking "Can we find scientific support for (or against) Intelligent Design?" we find vigorous disagreement about two central questions:  If, based on our evaluation of current evidence, it seems that a feature probably was not produced by non-Design (by undirected natural process), is it logical to conclude that this feature probably was the result of Design, or is this an illogical "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument based on our temporary ignorance?  What should we conclude when a scientific evaluation, using evidence and logic, is not conclusive?
      Other questions are more general:  In the title of Section 4, what does "authentically scientific" mean?  How should we define science and non-science? (and is this demarcation useful?)  Is rigid methodological naturalism necessary for science?  What are the limits for what can claim to be science, and for what science can claim to explain?  If a Design theory does not try to explain the details of Design (the how, why, and who), is this a serious weakness or a rational recognition of limits?  Design theories make claims about the history of nature, but (due to the limitations of historical data) is historical science inherently unscientific? or is it scientific yet limited? in what ways?  What are the similarities and differences between a mechanistic theory and agency theory?  Why are some Design theories accepted as being authentically scientific, while others are controversial?

• Whether ID is Science isn't Semantics by Alvin Plantinga, who says that Judge Jones "gave two arguments for his conclusion that ID is not science;  both are unsound."  (12 k)
• an IOU — This section needs resources, including counter-arguments about the judicial decision of Judge Jones in the Dover Trial; many other candidates are available, but selections have not yet been made.
• Design: What Scientific Difference Could It Make? by Del Ratzsch  (41 k+ 24k)

ID-based research programs?
• Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? by Kelly Smith, a critic of ID  (18 k)
• Gauging Intelligent Design's Success by William Dembski (2003), the first three sections — A Method for Detecting Design, Detecting Design in Biology, The Argument-from-Ignorance Objection — cover the basics of Design theory, and the fourth section, Potential Impact of Intelligent Design, is most relevant for thinking about "utility in science."

• dialogue between Robin Collins and Paul Gross:  Collins "proposes a mediating position" in which ID is not a scientific theory because details of its explanation "cannot be filled in using other branches of science," but ID may be scientifically useful "as a hypothesis that could potentially influence the practice of science."  Gross thinks this view "is no mediation; it just attempts by various means to reinforce a central claim of the ID movement, that mainstream science unfairly and unnecessarily excludes ID from the study of life’s history,... [but] in light of the massive evidence, the exclusion is both fair and necessary."  (Collins - Gross - Collins - 15 k total)  /  also, Collins has a longer analysis of ID (50 k) and so does Gross (25 k)

• dialogue in early 2001:  Is Intelligent Design testable? by William Dembski (January 24),  The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose by Eugenie Scott (February 12),  Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William Dembski (February 27)  (27 k, 11 k, 16 k)  /  Dembski's first paper, responding to a lecture by Scott (that doesn't seem to be available on the web), was a topic for discussion on the ASA email list so Jack Haas made a hybrid page with list-comments (31 k) interjected at appropriate places in Dembski's paper. [where to use this? theory structure? big tent for Feb 12 & 27?]

• Flock of Dodos — is a documentary (2006) about the advocates and critics of Intelligent Design:
• Wake Up, Dodos (making light of a dry, but important topic) by Anthony Dick, is a moderately anti-ID review for National Review  (9 k)  [IOU: there will be more reviews & essays about Dodos]

• OVERVIEW (mainly science, + more) by Allen Orr for New Yorker (May 2005), Devolution: Why intelligent design isn't  (28 k) [where to use? as overview in id-homepage? here? probably in bioE-page] and response by William Dembski  (15 k)

      Is methodological naturalism useful in science?
      Should a scientist use methodological naturalism by assuming (and concluding) that everything in history has occurred by natural process?  Is flexible methodological naturalism — beginning an investigation by assuming "it happened by natural process" but treating this as an assumption to be tested rather than a conclusion to be accepted — an option for a scientist?
      In our search for truth about the history of nature, what are the advantages and disadvantages of methodological naturalism (MN), in what ways can it be it useful and non-useful?  Is MN violated by a basic theory of Intelligent Design that does not explicitly propose supernatural action, but does allow it and may imply it?  Is MN an essential part of scientific method and science?  Is it acceptable, scientifically and theologically, for Christians?
      Confusion is caused by the common use of "naturalism" with two meanings:  in a narrow meaning, naturalism is a claim — which is compatible with Christian theism — that "only natural process occurred" for a particular event, process, or historical period;  in a broad meaning, NATURALISM (or naturism, materialism, matterism) is a claim — which is not compatible with Christian theism — that "only nature exists."  What are the similarities and differences between methodological naturalism and atheistic philosophical NATURALISM?  What are the relationships between them, and is there a tendency for either to cause the other?

• Two meanings of naturalism — only natural process, and only nature exists — and how we can minimize the confusion caused by naturalism and NATURALISM (two meanings for one word) by Craig Rusbult.  (5 k + 6k)
• Howard Van Till explains why he "has never approvingly employed the term methodological naturalism in his writing" due to its implied connections with philosophical NATURALISM.  (9 k + 5k)
• Keith Miller explains how Understanding the Nature of Science (thus reducing misconceptions about methodological naturalism and more) can help improve public understandings of evolution and design.  (2k abstract, 3k powerpoint)
• Loren Haarsma explains why the term "methodological NATURALISM" is inaccurate:  Where is God in science?  Christianity as a Foundation for Science (Part 2).  (25 k + 4k)    He looks at methodological naturalism and asks "must science deny miracles?" (no, but...) in Science, Miracles, and Methodological Naturalism.  (21 k)
• Craig Rusbult summarizes theological/philosophical implications & scientific utility of rigid methodological naturalism (13 k for Sections 7C-7D)
• Jeff Mino "looks briefly at the common arguments used against ID, including arguments from methodological naturalism, falsifiability, productivity, and religious fundamentalism... [and] explains why ID theory could be beneficial to our society today and suggests a need for a methodology of studying nature that exists alongside traditional science yet is not based on the precept of MN," in Science or Sience.  (37 k + 3k)
• Barbara Forrest Clarifies the Connection between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism (61 k + 13k) — she is an atheist (*) and is a prominent critic of ID;  she is especially critical of ID's cultural and political goals as outlined in her book, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.   {* but atheism is not the only reason to oppose ID, and some devout Christians are also critics of ID}
• Alvin Plantinga asks a question — Methodological Naturalism? — and analyzes arguments (weak and stronger) for it.  (55 k + 7k)

fairly soon (by August 2008) we'll find pages from:
• anti-ID pages claiming that methodological naturalism is necessary for science, so ID isn't science ==
• ID advocates (Phil Johnson,...) who describe mutually relationships (influencing? causative?) between methodological naturalism and philosophical NATURALISM. ==
• Madden & Discher and Van Till, 3-part dialogue (is second dialogue-series on this page)
 

Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS

  Search the Website