[asa] Confusion about Science and ID

Since science is incapable of determining whether or not life was designed, it is quite interesting to see science play the authoritative role in the debates about ID. Part of this is, of course, cultural. We have all been shaped by a culture that invests science with great authority. This becomes clear even in the realm of pop culture, where a late night TV ad for a new diet pill claims to have "scientific studies" showing it works. Thus, it is no surprise that the culture war aspect of ID is a play for science's authority. Everyone wants "science" to be on their side.

But it also stems from the way the ID movement has conflated design with being antievolution or anti-Darwin. Over at UD, Ted Davis is making many good points. He also noted:

"At the moment, however, ID is IMO an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution."

This is true. And clearly if someone wants to raise a critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution, science DOES speak with authority on these matters.

But here's the problem. In what sense is "a philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution" ID?

Let's say that a philosophical, or scientific, critique of the the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution succeeded. That does not, in any way, mean that design has been detected by science. It simply means, at most, that one theory of origins has been sucessfully criticized.

So we are left with a cultral illusion - the misguided notion, shared by the ID movement and most ID critics, that science is capable of determining whether or not life was designed. Science can provide information and ideas for addressing that issue, but science cannot answer it.

-Mike Gene

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 12 11:46:20 2008