[asa] New Atheist Logic Lends Support to ID Movement

For some time now, I have had a fascination with the similarities between the ID movement and the New Atheist movement. One thing that is becoming clear is that when the NA's argue that science has determined God does not exist, it becomes much harder for them to argue that ID is not science.

I myself have long argued that ID is not science. But I also think science cannot determine whether or not God exists (ie., NA is not science). So look what happens when someone embraces NA thinking.

Scientist Sean Carroll writes:

 "This is where talk of "methodological naturalism" goes astray. Paul Kurtz defines it as the idea that "all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events." That "explained and tested" is an innocent-looking mistake. Science tests things empirically, which is to say by reference to observable events; but it doesn't have to explain things as by reference to natural causes and events. Science explains what it sees the best way it can - why would it do otherwise? The important thing is to account for the data in the simplest and most useful way possible.

There's no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe. Indeed, this scenario is basically the hope of most proponents of Intelligent Design. The point is not that this couldn't possibly happen - it's that it hasn't happened in our actual world. In the real world, by far the most compelling theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena. No virgin human births, no coming back after being dead for three days, no afterlife in Heaven, no supernatural tinkering with the course of evolution. You can define "religion" however you like, but you can't deny the power of science to reach far-reaching conclusions about how reality works."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer/

Carroll has thus abandoned some of the most popular and powerful arguments against ID-as-science.

It is often argued that since ID invokes the supernatural, ID is not science. This was the lead reason in the Dover decision. Yet according to Carroll, invoking the supernatural is NOT a problem. In his mind, science can include supernatural causes and miracles.

It is often claimed that ID is a god-of-the-gaps approach, thus not science. Yet Carroll is advocating a god-of-the-gaps approach. Carroll clearly states, "There's no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe." So why doesn't science invoke supernatural causes? Because, "by far the most compelling theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena." Entailed in this argument is that the way to invoke a supernatural cause is to demonstrate that not "everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena." In other words, some thing that cannot be (perfectly) accounted for by natural phenomena. In other words, a Gap.

It would seem that Carroll's only beef with ID-as-science is the opinion that ID has not successfully identified a true Gap.

Yet, as we all know, the ID folks would disagree. And as we also know, disagreement is very common in science.

So here is what may be going on. Scientists like Carroll think ID would be science if a true Gap (something that is not "perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena") was found. The ID crowd think they have such a Gap (whether it's the origin of IC, CSI, etc.)

So in the mind of the ID people, they, in all sincerity, believe they are indeed doing science. They differ from scientists like Coyne and Carroll only in their estimation of success with regard to finding gaps. In such a context, whether or not a gap truly exists is a scientific question, as both sides agree that methodological naturalism has no role in deciding that question.

-Mike

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 23 23:40:55 2009