I forward Genie Scott's comments on ID, which call for the emperor to show
his clothes. My own view on this is somewhere in between Bill Dembski and
Genie Scott: I think that teachers at all levels (K-12 and university)
should be encouraged to "teach the controversy" about evolution as part of
science classes (not social studies, e.g.), since science isn't absolute
truth and isn't disconnected from other currents of thinking. Genie opposes
that (I know). On the other hand, I don't think that ID has clearly enough
distinguished itself from YEC (as Genie writes and as I've written
elsewhere) to articulate a coherent positive alternative to naturalism: they
need to answer precisely the sorts of questions that Genie raises. Bill
opposes that (I think). Meanwhile the controversy continues, even though
most schools won't talk about it....
Ted Davis
attached mail follows:
Metaviews 008. 2001.0212. Approximately 2052 words.
In the essay below, Eugenie Scott replies to William Dembski (see
Metaviews 006). On philosophical grounds, Scott argues that ³One
cannot use natural processes to hold constant the actions of
supernatural forces; hence it is impossible to test (by naturalistic
methodology) supernatural explanations.² Scott points out that
Dembski and other proponents of Intelligent Design are extremely
vague about acknowledging the observed pattern of evolution (by
whatever process). Scott writes that ³The reason ID proponents are
so vague about an actual picture of what happened is that they strive
to include YECs, progressive creationists (PCs), and theistic
evolutionists (TEs) among their theorists and supporters (though the
TE gang must feel rather uncomfortable, Dembski himself having
proclaimed that ŒID is no friend of theistic evolution¹ (Dembski,
1995). This is not just a big tent; it is one bulging with people
who must be eying one another warily.² Scott notes that much of this
effort is focused on influencing the curriculum in K-12 schools, but
it is not the least bit clear what exactly Dembski et. al. would have
us teach, say about the age of the Earth or the observed patterns of
evolution from common descent (again leaving aside the question of
how this evolution happens). Accordingly I have titled this essay,
"The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."
-- Billy Grassie
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <scott@ncseweb.org>
Subject: The Big Tent and the Camel¹s Nose
William Dembski has responded to my January 18 Tom Jukes Memorial
Lecture at UC Berkeley. Others are responding on META and elsewhere
to the focus of his essay, whether natural selection is testable, and
I shall not do so here. I should, however comment on views
attributed to me.
I wasn't really dealing with the testability of ID, though that is
the impression one might get from Dembski's essay. In this public
lecture, I discussed both traditional creation science as well as
Neocreationism, and compared them. I talked about Behe's irreducible
complexity idea, and Dembski's Design Inference, and illustrated
religious motivation for fighting evolution. I am not especially
concerned with whether ID is testable. I look at the testability of
ID the same way I look at the testability of traditional Young Earth
Creationism (YEC): YEC can make empirically or logically or
statistically testable statements (the Earth was covered by a body of
water, all living things are descended from creatures that came off a
boat) but its foundational claim that everything came into being
suddenly in its present form through the efforts of a supernatural
creator is not a scientifically testable claim. I¹ll let theologians
argue over whether Special Creationism is good theology, but evoking
omnipotent supernatural causes puts one smack out of the realm of
science, protestations of the validity of ³theistic science²
notwithstanding. One cannot use natural processes to hold constant
the actions of supernatural forces; hence it is impossible to test
(by naturalistic methodology) supernatural explanations (Scott, 1998
). Whether a supernatural force does or does not act is thus outside
of what science can tell us.
Similarly, ID can make empirically or logically or statistically
testable claims (that certain structures are irreducibly complex; by
using probability arguments like the ³design filter² one can detect
design) but the foundational claim that a supernatural ³intelligence²
is behind it all is not a scientifically testable statement. (And
please, let’s be grownups here: we’re not talking about a
disembodied, vague ³intelligence² that *might* be material, we’re
talking about God, an intelligent agent that can do things that,
according to ID, mortals and natural processes like natural selection
cannot. Not for nothing does Dembski say that ID is the bridge
between science and theology.)
In my talk, I wasn¹t deploring the untestability of ID *per se* but
the fact that its proponents don¹t present testable models. I was
referring to the fact that ID proponents don¹t present a model *at
all* in the sense of saying what happened when. At least YEC
presents a view of ³what happens²: the universe appeared within
thousands of years ago, at one time, in its present form, living
things are descended from specially created ³kinds² from which they
have not varied except in trivial ways, there was a universal flood
that produced the modern geological features, and humans are
specially created apart from all other forms. So what happened in
the ID model?
I said (and have said repeatedly) that the message of ID is
³evolution is bad science², without providing an alternative view of
the history of the universe. This is not trivial: in books by Philip
Johnson as well as in Jonathan Wells’ new *Icons of Evolution*
teachers are told that they should be teaching students about how
evolution is a weak, unsubstantiated ³theory in crisis², to use
former antievolutionist Michael Denton¹s phrase. The theories of
astronomical, geological and biological evolution attempt to explain
evidence demonstrating that the universe has been around for a long
time, and has gradually unfolded from a different form to its present
form. There are lots of details in there, about when and how things
happened: when our galaxy formed, when other galaxies formed, when
Earth formed and out of what matter, when warthogs or whortleberries
or liverworts came to resemble their present forms, and on.
Something happened, and we¹re trying to figure out what, and trying
to figure out the mechanisms that brought it about. ID tells us that
evolution didn¹t happen (what else is one supposed to take away from
*Icons of Evolution*?) but it doesn¹t tell us what *did*.
Unless ID proponents can come up with an actual model of ³what
happened², all they have is a sterile antievolutionism that adds
little to YEC beyond the specific ideas of irreducible complexity and
the design filter.
The reason ID proponents are so vague about an actual picture of what
happened is that they strive to include YECs, progressive
creationists (PCs), and theistic evolutionists (TEs) among their
theorists and supporters (though the TE gang must feel rather
uncomfortable, Dembski himself having proclaimed that ³ID is no
friend of theistic evolution² (Dembski, 1995). This is not just a
big tent; it is one bulging with people who must be eying one another
warily. Phil Johnson may want everyone to just be nice for the time
being until evolution is vanquished, and then they can work out their
disagreements, but if you think evolutionists squabble, wait until
you see what happens when the ID folks have to sort out their
differences.
As Ronald Numbers and Kelly Smith independently urged at last
summer¹s ³Design and Its Critics² conference, if ID is going to
attain any level of scholarly respectability, its proponents are
going to have to distinguish their model from the discredited,
unscientific YEC model, even if that means losing the support of
biblical literalist Christians. For aspiring scholarly movements,
the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Given my odd line of work, I¹m concerned with practical issues such
as what teachers are being told to do, and what effect this will have
on American education. As near as I can tell, teachers are being
encouraged to teach students that evolution didn¹t happen, and that
if it did, that natural selection isn¹t the cause of it, and that in
any event we have to leave room for the direct actions of a Creator,
and all this is still called science. But to keep all the ID
factions quiet, an actual picture of what happened, which is what
evolution is trying to explain and what ID has to explain, is never
mentioned. What should teachers teach? Apparently, judging from
*Icons of Evolution*, they should teach the familiar old YEC saws
about the weaknesses of evolution. Evolution is bad science, they
say. So to my way of thinking, ID doesn¹t rise above familiar
antievolutionism, though it may be served up in probability theory
and information theory with a side order of biochemistry, but there
is no coherent ID model of what happened for teachers to actually
teach.
This invites the question of what, according to the proponents of ID,
should teachers teach about the following issues?
1) Is the universe a few thousand years old or billions? Most ID
proponents will if forced, uncomfortably confess that they accept an
ancient age of the earth, but they are quick to dismiss the question
as unimportant, presumably to keep the YECs in the antievolution
tent. But should a teacher teach that the earth is millions or
thousands of years old? You can¹t have it both ways if you are
proposing a K-12 curriculum. What is the ID model? What happened?
2) Is the geological column which shows a succession of species
through time, ³real² or an artifact? At least the YECs present a
model of what happened: the arrangement of species in the geological
column is a result of sorting by Noah¹s flood, rather than their
appearance at different times. Does ID accept the geological column
as ³real²? This is a simple thing to agree to: it is still possible
to argue (as Jonathan Wells does) that the arrangement of species
through time doesn¹t represent descent with modification, but Dembski
et al. are going to have to come clean as to what this means.
Minimally, it means the Special Creationists are wrong, but it also
requires the PCs and the TEs to fight it out as to whether the
succession of species through time represents separate creations or a
geneological pattern of related species.
3) Did living things descend with modification from common
ancestors? This is what biological evolution is all about, and where
the ID big tent starts showing the strain of trying to stretch over
incompatible views. How is ID going to accommodate both Theistic
Evolutionist Michael Behe and Special Creationist Paul Nelson? More
important, what do proponents of ID expect teachers to teach? What
happened?
I think I know the answer. Teachers are supposed to teach that
evolution didn¹t happen. Of course, if they did, they would be
teaching a view that is well outside the scientific mainstream, and
be doing their students no favors. I like to remind people that
evolution is taught matter-of-factly at every solid university in the
nation, including Brigham Young, Notre Dame, and Baylor. But more
importantly for our purposes here, ID does not present a coherent
model of ³what happened², making it impossible for teachers to
present ID as an alternative to evolution, as proponents seek.
Now, maybe Dembski or other ID proponents will tell me that they are
not trying to influence the K-12 curriculum, that they are merely
trying to build a scholarly movement at the university or
intellectual level, trusting that eventually ID will be validated and
like other intellectual movements, it will trickle down to the K-12
level. If Dembski had attended my talk, he would have heard me
advocate exactly this strategy. I don¹t think ID will enter the
academic mainstream, but if it does, then obviously it will
eventually be taught in high school. But I don’t think ID proponents
are willing to wait until they get this validation: Jonathan Wells,
whose book provides disclaimers to be copied and placed in K-12
textbooks, is obviously concerned primarily with the K-12 curriculum;
Philip Johnson’s *Defeating Darwinism* is explicitly aimed at high
school students; and CRSC¹s Steven Meyer is an author of a
substantial ³Afterward² to teachers in the ID high school textbook,
*Of Pandas and People*. Bruce Gordon, presently interim director of
The Baylor Science and Religion Project, has correctly noted, : ID
³has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science
education, where it has no business making an appearance without
broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a
worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world²
(Gordon, 2001).
So, what happened, Bill? Will you go beyond ³evolution is bad
science² to give us an actual model of what happened?
References
Dembski, William 1995 What every theologian should know about
creation, evolution, and design. Center for Interdisciplinary Studies
Transactions 3(2):3.
Dembski, William. 2001. Is Intelligent Design Testable? A Reply to
Eugenie Scott. META 004. 2001.01.24.
Scott, Eugenie C. 1998 Two kinds of materialism. *Free Inquiry*,
Spring, 1998, p. 20.
I thank Glenn Branch for useful comments.
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
925 Kearney St.
El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
510-526-1674
FAX: 510-526-1675
800-290-6006
scott@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Footer information below last updated: 1999/12/10.
Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service
dedicated to promoting the constructive engagement of science
and religion. Subscriptions are free. For more information,
including archives and submission guidelines, go to
<http://www.meta-list.org>.
There are now four separate meta-lists to which you can subscribe:
<metaviews> is commentaries and bookreviews posted three to five
times per week. <metanews> is announcements and news and is posted
as frequently as needed. <metamonthly> is a monthly digest.
<meta-reiterations> is a higher volume discussion list which is lightly
moderated. You can subscribe to one or all of the meta-lists.
If you would like to unsubscribe or change your subscription options,
simply go to <http://www.meta-list.org> and follow the links to
subscribe or unsubscribe. Note that all subscription changes entered
on the web forms, requires your confirmation by email.
Copyright 1999, 2000 by William Grassie. Copies of this internet posting
may be made and distributed in whole without further permission. Credit:
"This information was circulated on the Meta Lists on Science and Religion
<http://www.meta-list.org>."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 08:30:16 EST