Has Intelligent Design Reached The Tipping Point?

Everywhere you look people are talking about intelligent design (ID).  The lefty blogs.  The righty blogs.  In my email inbox.  On the news.  On the talk shows.

Can you say, tipping point?

UPDATE:  The cover of TIME magazine!  This idea has tipped.

My left leaning friends are convinced that ID is a Trojan horse designed to bring preaching and praying back into public schools.  They also believe that ID is the next politically unifying issue to energize the base of the republican party.  They advocate a republicans-are-Luddites counteroffensive.

GWB was recently asked if he felt intelligent design should be taught in public schools.  He replied,

"Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

KABLOOM.  The roar in the MSM and b'sphere has been deafening.

Here is my take on ID.

1. Most people who have strong opinions on ID don't have a clue what it means.  This is true of the left and the right.
2. ID is multifaceted.  There is no such thing as "ID".  There are three major, different, conversations taking place about detecting design.  They are distinct.
3. If you formed a ratio of bad arguments against ID to good arguments against ID, the ratio would be about 10-1.  10 stupid arguments for every 1 solid argument.  I do think there are legitimate concerns.  I am a card carrying creationist who rejects macro-evolution, and I think highly of all three forms of ID.  But I do think there are legitimate concerns.
4. ID has been around for years and practiced in the scientific establishment.  And no one has ever cared.  *Yawn*.  Design, big deal.  Then someone decided to use the tools of detecting design and applied it to biology.  KABLOOM.  That is when the nuclear bomb went off.

Bottom line: turning ID into a political weapon is a mistake.  It is a mistake for the left to elevate this issue to the stratosphere because they will feed the stereotypes that have already been killing them (elitist, religion hating, cold secularists).  I also think it is a mistake for the right to turn it into a political weapon.  The more political it becomes, the more it feeds the stereotype of being silly pseudo-science instead of an interesting research area that needs time to mature.  It also distracts the right from more important discussions: like about justice.

"Where do we come from?" is an important worldview question that has important implications.  That is the important question lying beneath the current ID war.  Here is my advice.  Use the upsurge in attention to your advantage.  Use it to get into a good conversation about the worldviews beneath the wars.  Talk about the real issue: "Where do we come from?" -- and why that is the critical issue.

Everyone likes a good fight.  This story won't go away.  One thing is for sure, I believe the topic of Intelligent Design is fast reaching the tipping point.  Buckle your seat belts.

Note on comments: I am going to open this up for comments on Monday.  I will be gone for the weekend and do not want to miss out on the fun discussion this thread is sure to cause.

Comments

[Brian]

More talk about Intelligent Design with TIME's latest cover story.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html

- Brian

[tgirsch]

I would dispute your 10-to-1 ratio, of course, but part of the reason for that perceived ratio is simply that ID proponents simply refuse to be nailed down on anything that could be, you know, independently tested or verified. ID can't be disproved in large part because its proponents often won't even venture beyond vaugue generalizations and get specific about what it is they're claiming.

The other place where I think you go wrong is where you talk about how it would be a mistake to politicize the issue. It's too late for such warnings, because the issue has been irreparably politicized for several years now. The President's statements have given it a bit more national prominence now, but ID has been in the news for years, and its proponents have been politically active for quite some time.

And that's one of my biggest objections to ID: it's being foisted upon us not academically, but politically. It's not a case of a large group of scientists saying "Hey, there's something to this, and we can demonstrate it." It's a case of a very vocal minority using politics to push an agenda that they can't otherwise get mainstream support for. They can't win within the system (that being the scientific community), so they want to bypass the system.

If ID proponents got their way, science classes would quickly go the way of the Model T and be replaced with high-minded "worldview discussions" that wouldn't bother to dirty themselves with little details like what can be empirically verified. Oh, sure, they wouldn't ban science outright; just anything that they feel threatens their particular worldview (which turns out to be most of it).

If we allow ID into the science classroom, then we also have to let Flat Earth theory back into the science classroom, and Young Earth theory, and magnet therapy, and reflexology, and who knows what else.

[Phil S]

Jeff-I like the idea of maybe being on the verge of a tipping point. And I think you are right about the 10-to-1 ration. The vast majority of what I read against ID refuses to take the central claims of ID seriously or would rather attack Christianity in general than the science of ID.

I have always contended that when ID is seen for its scientific rigor, then a "tipping point" may not be far behind.

[tgirsch]

And what, precisely, are the "central claims of ID" that can be empirically verified?

See, Jeff talks about the pro-evolution majority being "elitist," but they're not the ones who want to bypass the scientific peer-review process that every other idea has to survive. See, the ID proponents "know better," and shouldn't be required to pass any paltry litmus tests. Their ideas should be taken seriously in the absence of consensus.

The utter contempt that ID proponents have for the scientific method is simply mind-boggling.

[Dawn Treader]

Tom,

Let's make sure we are all talking about the same thing.

What exactly is intelligent design as you understand it? Note: I am not fishing for snarky remarks here -- I am serious.

I think it will help us to have a productive exchange.

Also, what books have you read written by those associated with ID? That will help me understand your knowledge base.

[dopderbeck]

A few thoughts:

Jeff, I think you're right about not politicizing this issue, although I think Tom is also right that it's too late because the issue has already become political. Se la guerre.

Tom -- I hear what you're saying to some extent about ID, but some of it seems really circular and unfair. The comment about ID'ers bypassing the peer review process, for example, seems particularly to miss the point. If the proponents of ID are correct in their critique of the sociology of the scientific establishment, and I think to a certain extent they are, of course ID'ers have difficulty with the traditional peer review process. The so-called "peer" reviewers are all people who are highly placed in, and thus have vested interests in, the scientific establishment which ID threatens. In this respect, I think your understanding of the "scientific method" is naive. Forget the Mertonian norms of a happy, objective "community of science" striving together towards Truth. As Thomas Kuhn has observed, Science as an establishment hates revolutions, and revolutionaries are right not to expect "objective" peer review of their work. I think, some day, historians of science will cluck their tounges at an age in which "Science" was defined a priori to exclude any reference to a designer.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:

Haven't read any of the ID books, only what web folks like you have put forth. And that has included some extensive excerpts of Dembski and Behe and others, of course. But then how many books against ID theory have you read?

As for what Intelligent Design Theory states, that seems to be a moving target. The nutshell version is that life is too complex to have occurred by chance and that it therefore must have been designed by some unidentified designer. This is usually "supported" by some combination of irreducible complexity arguments and misstatements of the second law of the thermodynamics vis-a-vis "increasing information."

A more recent tack has been to talk about the ability to differentiate between apparent design and actual design, but that's often more general, minus any actual testable hypotheses.

dopderbeck:

The comment about ID'ers bypassing the peer review process, for example, seems particularly to miss the point. If the proponents of ID are correct in their critique of the sociology of the scientific establishment, and I think to a certain extent they are, of course ID'ers have difficulty with the traditional peer review process.

Well, if they were right about being unfairly snubbed by the scientific establishment, they should be able to point to the quality science they've done that's been unfairly dismissed. Their inability to do this, with specificity, indicates to me that no such snubbing is going on.

As Thomas Kuhn has observed, Science as an establishment hates revolutions, and revolutionaries are right not to expect "objective" peer review of their work.

Well, the fact that peer review is difficult to survive is precisely what makes the scientific method work so well. Scientists, like anyone else, are largely hostile to change. So to be able to convince them that a drastic change in theory is in order is quite an accomplishment. It's difficult, but not impossible, so when it happens, you can be reasonably sure that there's good reason to give some weight to the new theory, because it means that the theory is sound enough to win over a largely hostile crowd.

Well, that would likely take a fundamental redefinition of what science is, because science currently concerns itself only with those things that can be empirically verified; that, or the existence of God is empirically verifiable, in which case there's no need for faith any more. I doubt you'll find either alternative particularly agreeable.

All:

The bottom line is that ID hasn't yet established itself as legitimate science. At worst, it's not science at all, but religious philosophy thinly disguised as science. At best (giving a great deal more weight than it deserves), it's highly speculative, similar to superstring theory. Either way, it has no business in a high school science classroom.

[tgirsch]

Hmm, last few paragraphs should read thusly:

I think, some day, historians of science will cluck their tounges at an age in which "Science" was defined a priori to exclude any reference to a designer.

Well, that would likely take a fundamental redefinition of what science is, because science currently concerns itself only with those things that can be empirically verified; that, or the existence of God is empirically verifiable, in which case there's no need for faith any more. I doubt you'll find either alternative particularly agreeable.

All:

The bottom line is that ID hasn't yet established itself as legitimate science. At worst, it's not science at all, but religious philosophy thinly disguised as science. At best (giving a great deal more weight than it deserves), it's highly speculative, similar to superstring theory. Either way, it has no business in a high school science classroom.

[Dawn Treader]

Tom,

You and Kevin have identified ID as the enemy. It seems to me that the best strategy for winning a war against any enemy is to understand your enemy.

If you and Kevin are as serious and devoted to squashing ID as you seem to be, then it is a huge mistake to rely on bloggers and web sites to understand ID. You need to go to primary sources. Otherwise you run the risk of getting misled -- either by people who are intentionally trying to dupe you, or people who simply don't understand ID themselves.

At a minimum, there are two books you should read.

Intelligent Design

and

Darwin's Black Box

These are the two books most everyone talks about. You will see that the authors discuss two different arguments -- both of which are classified under the heading "ID". There is a third form of ID that we could talk about, but that should be enough for now.

Darwin's Black Box is at the Memphis Public Library -- I just checked. It is at the Central and Highland locations. Your public library does not carry Intelligent Design unfortunately. I think this book does the best job of making the empirical case for design detection -- which is one of your chief critiques of the movement.

Your library does have a book called "Signs of intelligence : understanding intelligent design" edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner. It is a collection of essays. It is currently checked in at the Highlands location. It may not be as strong as Intelligent Design, but it is free and available at the library.

Your library also has a DVD for check out called "Unlocking the mystery of life". It is at Central. You still need the books, but the video is fairly well done and provides a good introduction.

Here is my point.

Do your due diligence first. Understand what ID is -- not just what others think ID is. Then you will be able to develop an effective campaign against ID -- you will know the lay of the land. It will be time well spent.

What books have you read against ID that I should check out? My library probably carries them.

[Dawn Treader]

David,

I think your reference to Kuhn's work is insightful. Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts -- gestalt shifts -- is helpful to this discussion.

That is certainly what is taking place. Design as a paradigm versus undirected gradualism.

Kuhn points to anomalies as the precursors to revolution. There are two major anomalies that no longer fit the undirected, gradualistic paradigm. One is information, an unlikely by product of a putatively random, blind process. Two is irreducibility -- which challenges the very heart of gradualism.

These two anomalies have upset the previous model. They weren't predicted. They don't fit. But they are clearly part of the cell.

How does the scientific establishment react to the new paradigm? They fight it. They will refuse to budge unless a new alternative paradigm is offered.

It is interesting that Kuhn says that a scientific revolution that results in paradigm change is analogous to a political revolution. He maintains that "Parties to a revolutionary conflict finally resort to the techniques of mass persuasion."

That is a lot of what is taking place today. Attempts at mass persuasion -- on both sides. The politicalization of the process.

Kuhn continues, "When paradigms enter into a debate about fundamental questions and paradigm choice, each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense—the result is a circularity and inability to share a universe of discourse."

We see plenty of that, true?

Kuhn adds, "Consequently, the assimilation of either a new sort of phenomenon or a new scientific theory must demand the rejection of an older paradigm"

This is where the new paradigm of design faces a major worldview battle. Design implies a Designer -- which makes it at odds with naturalism. Scientists will fight this new paradigm no matter how much sense it makes. Their naturalistic worldview won't allow them to make the gestalt shift.

Their only recourse will be all out political war -- to defend an old, outdated paradigm that continues to gather anomalies along the way.

When worldviews collide, we see either politics or war. Thankfully, in this case, we are not seeing any bullets fly.

I am having a hard time envisioning how the new paradigm will replace the old one -- given what we both know to be true of worldviews.

Here is where I see a tension in Kuhn's ideas. He seems to imply that worldviews change as paradigms change. I think it is the other way around.

Assumptions about reality must change in order for paradigms to shift. Given man's natural proclivity to suppress truth (Romans 1 and 2), such a shift in assumptions is spiritual in nature.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:

You misunderstand me. I don't want to "squash" ID, I want to sqaush pseudoscience. If ID proves itself out, like every other field of scientific inquiry has to do, then I will welcome it with open arms. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about bypassing all those proving grounds -- essentially cheating the system -- and going directly into schools. And that's simply not prudent at this juncture.

If I were arguing that nobody should be talking about or investigating Intelligent Design, then you'd be right about my need to go to primary sources. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm just talking about whether or not ID has played by the rules, and survived the same scrutiny that other theories must in order to gain acceptance. Clearly it has not, and I need not look to primary sources to figure that out, any more than I need primary sources to say that super string theory remains largely hypothetical and untested.

Now, my hunch is certainly that ID is bunk, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it should be taught in schools, which is the subject at hand. All that matters there is whether or not ID is well-established, accepted science, and clearly it is not.

The issue you've ducked is the reflexology/astrology/alternative medicine problem. These aren't well-established sciences either, and the scientific community is at least as biased against these as it is against ID. So why should ID curry special treatment, and these others get left out?

[tgirsch]

For what it's worth, I have read excerpts and critiques of Darwin's Black Box, but not the book itself. And as I said, I've also read several essays by Dembski and Behe. If these aren't primary sources, I don't know who would be.

But I do have a question about the books you've listed: are they hard science books, of the sort that would list the testable models in detail, or are they more popularized science, like what Steven Jay Gould used to write? If the latter, they're not really going to get us much of anywhere.

Kuhn points to anomalies as the precursors to revolution. There are two major anomalies that no longer fit the undirected, gradualistic paradigm. One is information, an unlikely by product of a putatively random, blind process. Two is irreducibility -- which challenges the very heart of gradualism.

The problem with One is that "information" hasn't been defined precisely enough by ID proponents to be of any practical use. And you should know by now that Two has been repeatedly debunked.

Here is where I see a tension in Kuhn's ideas. He seems to imply that worldviews change as paradigms change. I think it is the other way around.

I think you read much into Kuhn; I'm not sure he's saying that one necessarily causes the other, or that the shift is necessarily one way; I think instead that he says that the two happen at the same time, i.e., a shift in one causes a shift in the other.

[kevin]

Jeff

I have actually read parts of Darwin's Black Box, and it isn't useful to the question of whether or not the idoea is science. Unless there was mor einformation in the chapters I did not get to, the book was a popularization, like the pieces Hawkings rights, not a hard scientific tract.

But the point isn't about whether or not we believe in ID: the point is that ID has not proven itself as science. Evolution has been through a century of research and testing by literally tesn of thousands of scientists in literally dozens of fields to get wehre it is now -- accepted scientific theory. ID has not done any of that. It doesn't posit a testable theory or testable predictions, it hasn't been rigorously reviewed by peers in any disciplines that I can find. Like I said in my post in resposne to this one:

Think about the situation for a moment. ID is not science. It makes no falsifiable predictions, it provides nothing in the way of a coherent theory, it doesn’t even provide even so much as a method of determining what was and what was not designed. It defines itself not by what it is, but by what it opposes. It is not science in any meaningful sense of the word. And yet, its proponents want it taught as science without having done any of the hard work necessary to earn that place in the science classroom.

Evolution is science. It does make falsifiable predictions. It does present a coherent theory. It has been tested and refined by the research and experimentation of tens of thousands of scientists over the course of more than one hundred years. It has earned its place in the science classroom.

So we have two camps — ID and evolution. The ID camp cannot claim to be science, cannot claim to have any scientific evidence, and cannot claim a serious body of work that supports it. Evolution’s merit has been proven by the constant application of the scientific method. ID advocates claims it should have entry to the same places evolution has entry — science classrooms — based on nothing more than their sense of entitlement based upon their position in society. ID advocates feel entitled to what they have not earned, rewards they have not worked for, and respect they do not deserve — and evolution is elitist?

And thats my problem with it in the classroom -- it isn't accepted science. it has done far less than string theory, and I don't want that taught in science classes, either.

[dopderbeck]

Tom and Kevin,

I see two themes in your complaints about ID:

1. It hasn't won acceptance from the scientific establishment / passed peer review; and

2. It isn't "science" because it provides no falsifiable models / isn't empirically verifiable.

Complaint #1, I think, is fully answered by a Kuhnian view of the community of science. You haven't really answered the Kuhnian view, other than to restate your original argument. The bottom line, I think, is that to a large extent you are trusting the scientific establishment to make the decision about ID for you. Because of the scientific establishment's well-documented, even stated, a prioriinstitutional bias against any notion of a designer, I don't share that level of trust.

Complaint #2 is as confused as it is interesting. What gets to be called "science?" And who gets to decide what gets to be called "science?" "Science," after all, is not some kind of ontological Being, like God, or some kind of Platonic Form, which would dictate our definition of the term. "Science" is just a signifier for a certain method or methods of investigation, and the meaning of that signfier has changed significantly over time and continues to change.

You've offered two definitions: empirical verifiability and falsifiability. Falsifiability, of course, was developed by Popper in response to the problem of induction, which is inherent in your first model of "empirical verifiability." In many areas of inquiry, it's impossible to truly verify a set of observations, because there's no way to conduct a meaningful, repeatable, controlled experiment. Cosmology is certainly one such field -- try repeating the Big Bang in a lab. Popper's solution is to suggest that we can construct a theories about things like cosmology based on what we can observe, and accept those theories unless / until other observations falsify the theory.

Popper's solution to the problem of induction, though elegant, also is imperfect, however. As Quine forcibly argued, even observations are theory-laden, so it is difficult to distinguish observation from theory. And we've already mentioned Kuhn's critique.

So why is "Science" defined only to include verifiable observations or falsifiable theories? There's no "scientific" reason for defining it this way. The answer I hear most often is pragmatic: because these methods have worked well in areas like medicine and applied engineering; just look at the progress we've made in those two areas since the Enlightenment.

But I'd suggest that these methods haven't worked well when it comes to cosmology. Indeed, if there is a designer, and our methods exclude him a priori from inquiry concerning origins, our methods are an abject failure, because they tell us nothing about the universe as it really is. So, my broader position is the entire debate about whether ID is "Science" is misplaced. We should first be discussing what "Science" means.

However, let's say we accept Popper's falsifiability criterion and apply it ID's irreducible complexity theory as it relates to cellular function. The observations are that certain cellular functions require a precise cascade of chemical reactions; none of these reactions, taken alone or in any other combination than the one in which they presently occur, has any apparent utility to the organism; and without this exact cascade of reactions, the cell would not function.

The theory is that none of these chemicals would be present in the cell through chance or accretive change; indeed, the cell itself, and ultimately the organism composed of many such cells, would not exist without the complete chemical pathway (hence, the system is "irreducibly complex"); and the precise tuning of the chain of reactions suggests the influence of a designer.

Why is this theory not falsifiable? If you observed a pathway by which this set of cellular reactions develops through natural selection alone, wouldn't you have falsified the theory? In fact, I've seen arguments against Behe's irreducible complexity theory that purport to demonstrate evolutionary pathways for some of the mechanisms Behe says are irreducibly complex, thus acknowledging at least implicity that Behe's claims are falsifiable.

Even if we use Popper, then, it seems to me that the argument boils down to this: God (or a designer), a priori, must be excluded from anything we call "Science." This is just prejudice, not Science.

[tgirsch]

David:

Why do we have to answer the "Kuhnian view?" Why should ID be granted a special exemption from winning acceptance within the scientific community? And even assuming this is advisable (it sure as heck isn't), how then do we differentiate substantive scientific claims that are being unfairly snubbed from groundless claims that are being rightly snubbed? How do we separate snake oil from penicilin?

Because of the scientific establishment's well-documented, even stated, a priori institutional bias against any notion of a designer, I don't share that level of trust.

As I stated above, their bias isn't against a designer per se but against that which cannot be empirically verified. And that's as it should be since science by definition is the study of those things which can be empirically verified.

"Science" is just a signifier for a certain method or methods of investigation, and the meaning of that signfier has changed significantly over time and continues to change.

First, you can lose the scare quotes around science. Second, while the findings of science have changed a great deal throughout history, the process of science, which is what we're talking about here, has changed very little. And it's this process that ID proponents would bypass.

In any case, I disagree that a designer is excluded a priori. Your beef with science doesn't seem to be that it excludes the possibility of a designer/creator (it doesn't -- it merely goes, albeit often reluctantly, wherever the evidence leads); you seem upset that it doesn't share your assumption (a priori) that a creator/designer must exist.

We should first be discussing what "Science" means.

Here, at least, we agree. To pick on Jeff for a minute, he chides me for not having a good idea of what ID is, but himself often exhibits a lack of understanding of what science is. So agreeing upon what we mean by science is indeed of great importance.

The observations are that certain cellular functions require a precise cascade of chemical reactions; none of these reactions, taken alone or in any other combination than the one in which they presently occur, has any apparent utility to the organism; and without this exact cascade of reactions, the cell would not function.

Straw man. In fact, there are innumerable other combinations for which a cell could function. So you're building the case for irreducible complexity from a flawed foundation.

But all of this is, of course, beside the point. We have a method for evaluating scientific knowledge which, while imperfect, has worked remarkably well for literally centuries. To suggest changing this method now would require a darn good reason; it has to go well beyond some vocal religiously-motivated minority having their sensibilities offended. You have to demonstrate a very real systemic problem with the current method, and then demonstrate another method which solves that problem and otherwise works at least as well as the current method.

Nobody has done that or, to my knowledge, has even bothered to try. So I fail to see how any system which allows ID to stand toe-to-toe with evolution wouldn't also allow astrology to stand toe-to-toe with astrophysics, or snake oil to stand toe-to-toe with penicilin.

[tgirsch]

By the way, here's a great deal more on "irreducible complexity," and most of the complaints against the concept have nothing to do with non-falsifiability, although that's still an issue. But here, in a nutshell, is why "irreducible complexity" is non-falsifiable:

Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental.

[kevin]

"I think, is fully answered by a Kuhnian view of the community of science. You haven't really answered the Kuhnian view, other than to restate your original argument."

Are you honestly arguing that all the worlds peer reviewed sceintific journals are conspiring to keep valid science out of their pages because they don't like ID or religion? That they could do that an no one would know or help expose that conspiracy? And while we ar eon the topic - -explain the appearance os string theory matte rin scientifc journals. Traditional physicists hate that theory with a passion. I have seen it referred to as "nonsense form brand dead pot smokers". And yet, string theory gets published and reviewed in peer reviewed journals. ANY new theory attacks some established part fo science. And yet new theories are argued over and debated in the pages of peer reviewed journals all the time. Why would you expect ID to be any different?

" Because of the scientific establishment's well-documented, even stated, a prioriinstitutional bias against any notion of a designer, I don't share that level of trust."

And now we are back to the consipracy. First, you need to prove your assertions friend, becasue their are plenty of religious scientists. The only way this could explain the lack of ID in peer reviewed journals is a conspiracy among literally tens of thousands of scientists. And while we ar eon the subject, please xplain how anti-global warming material gets pubished in peer reviewed journals? the scentific community ios overwhelming convinced of global wamring and that humans play a large part in it, but good science questioning that theory and/or aspects of it get published in peer review journals. So consensous opinions don't seem to have an effect on one of the most politically contentious issues of the day. Again, why would ID be different?

As for your definition of science, well, let me just deal with this one point:

"Why is this theory not falsifiable?"

Simple: it never, ever lays out a definition of irreduciable complexity other than "whatever I think is irreducably complex". As sson as something can be shown to be explained, it can ALWAYS go to the next level down in the complexity chain and say "that is too complex to be designed". There is nothing in the "theory" of his that defines what is and is not encompassed by it. And therefor, there is no test that can possibly prove it or disprove it. There is no way to give the theory to two scientists, lock them in seperate rooms with identical material, and have them come out of those rooms with anything approaching the same conslusions about what part sof the material wihere, based soley on the definition provided by the material, irreducably complex.

"I know it when I see it", which is irreducably complex's only working definition, is not science.

[dopderbeck]

Sorry, I messed up the tags in my prior post and you can't tell which stuff is mine and which is Tom's. (Jeff, maybe you can delete). Let me try again:

Tom --
Why do we have to answer the "Kuhnian view?"

We don't. But why do we have to answer to the pre-Popper definition of "Science" that you propose? Or to Popper's? The Kuhnian view does have the merit of being a historically sound description of the progress of scientific thought, while your pre-Popperian view does not.

As I stated above, their bias isn't against a designer per se but against that which cannot be empirically verified.

You stated it, but your statement is wrong. First, empirical verifiability isn't even a principal criterion for "science" among materialist Darwinists, as the Popperian falsifiability criterion shows. Second, there is ample evidence that the scientific establishment systematically excludes references to a designer. Many in the scientific establishment are explicit about the fact that their methodological commitments preclude any reference to anything other than purely materialistic forces.

while the findings of science have changed a great deal throughout history, the process of science, which is what we're talking about here, has changed very little.

Wrong again. Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" was published only in 1934 and was considered a bombshell at the time. Other critiques such as Quine's and Kuhn's are even more recent (Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was published in 1962 and Quine's seminal work was published in the 1950's). You're stuck in the Eighteenth Century, but the philosophy of science keeps moving on.

To pick on Jeff for a minute, he chides me for not having a good idea of what ID is, but himself often exhibits a lack of understanding of what science is. So agreeing upon what we mean by science is indeed of great importance.

Not trying to be snarky, but given the above, it doesn't seem like you really have a deep grasp of what "science" is either.

Straw man. In fact, there are innumerable other combinations for which a cell could function. So you're building the case for irreducible complexity from a flawed foundation.

I wasn't building a case, I was stating a falsifiable theory. Whether that theory is accurate or not is a different issue, and thus you raise the straw man, not me.

But all of this is, of course, beside the point. We have a method for evaluating scientific knowledge which, while imperfect, has worked remarkably well for literally centuries.

This is the pragmatic argument I referred to in my original post. It fails for at least two reasons: 1. the "method" has in fact changed significantly over time, so the argument's premise is flawed; and 2. existing methods have worked well for some things, but not others. The existing methods have enabled us to build desktop computers, but haven't helped us solve the mysteries of cosmology, for example.

But here, in a nutshell, is why "irreducible complexity" is non-falsifiable:

Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex". Any similarity to Zeno's Paradox is surely accidental.

And the same can be said of any "scientific" theory based on the criterion of falsifiability, including Darwinian evolution, which is remarkable in its capacity to adapt to apparent flaws in the observable data. But this is exactly how the falsfiability criterion is supposed to work. At some point, if a critique of a purportedly irreducibly complex system is correct, we will arrive at the smallest possible elements of the system which, having been shown to not be irreducibly complex, will completely falsify the theory with respect to that system.

[dopderbeck]

Kevin,

Are you honestly arguing that all the worlds peer reviewed sceintific journals are conspiring to keep valid science out of their pages because they don't like ID or religion?

No. A conspiracy suggests some conscious coordination, and I don't suggest any such thing. But I do believe the reigning paradigm of materialistic Darwinism underlies the decisions of most individual peer reviewers and that the cultural bias within the scientific community against suggestions of design create career risks in publishing ID literature that most peer reviewers are not willing to take. I also believe the bias against suggestions of a designer within the "legitimate" scientific community keeps many young scientists out of the ID world. Being an academic myself (in law, not science), I can understand how important it is to produce the right sort of work to acquire tenure.

Honestly, I don't think playing the "conspiracy theorist" card is a fair move -- it smacks of an ad hominem. What I'm suggesting is simply the Kuhnian view of scientific paradigm shifts.

And yet new theories are argued over and debated in the pages of peer reviewed journals all the time. Why would you expect ID to be any different?
--snip--
So consensous opinions don't seem to have an effect on one of the most politically contentious issues of the day. Again, why would ID be different?

Indeed, why would ID be any different? Why should things like string theory, which might just be crazy nonsense, get published in establishment journals, while ID doesn't? Why can you advance just about any theory in the scientific literature other than one which implies the existence or agency of God? Because the scientific establishment's methodlogical pre-commitment is to exclude God a priori. This methodologial pre-commitement is one of the significant components of the existing paradigm, to use Kuhn's model again, that ID threatens. String theory, various ideas about global climate change, and the like don't challenge that paradigm.

Why is this theory not falsifiable?"

Simple: it never, ever lays out a definition of irreduciable complexity other than "whatever I think is irreducably complex".

When I said "this theory," I was referring to the little model of cellular functioning I provided, not to irreducible complexity generally. I think what I laid out was plenty specific for the falsifiability criterion; Behe lays it out in even more detail with reference to particular biochemical chains. How is the specific model of cellular functioning I mentioned not falsifiable?

As sson as something can be shown to be explained, it can ALWAYS go to the next level down in the complexity chain and say "that is too complex to be designed".

Again, the same is true for any theory based on the falsifiability criterion, particularly naturalistic evolution. The fossil record no longer supports a particular evolutionary pathway for a given organism? Fine, there must be some other pathway. The genetic data suggest different relationships among certain organisms than our evolutionary model previously predicted? Fine, there must be some other way to explain the relationships.

All of this goes to Quine's critique of the scientific method: all obseravations are theory-laden, and the observer always tries to fit the data into her theory.

There is no way to give the theory to two scientists, lock them in seperate rooms with identical material, and have them come out of those rooms with anything approaching the same conslusions about what part sof the material wihere, based soley on the definition provided by the material, irreducably complex.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying two scientists would never agree that there is no apparent evolutionary pathway by which a given system could have developed gradually? In that case, you're simply wrong. They might not agree that the system is therefore irreducibly complex, because of the dynamic with which you critique ID: they'd probably say the evolutionary pathway must exist but simply isn't yet known. They'd adapt their theory to their observations.

"I know it when I see it", which is irreducably complex's only working definition, is not science.

This would be a nice rhetorical flourish if it weren't so lame. Here, for example, is Behe's definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, at p. 39. (One example of an irreducibly complex system is a standard mousetrap -- take away the base, spring, lever or latch, and the trap effectively ceases functioning). Hardly "I know it when I see it."

[tgirsch]

David:

Popper's work didn't change the fundamental process of science, which is to start with a hypothesis, test it, and if it tests out, have others critique it and attempt to replicate it. The meaning of "test" may have changed somewhat, simply because you can't replicate millions of years of evolution (or cosmology or geology, for that matter) in a lab. Thus, despite your objections, the "method" has not substantially changed. The available tools have broadened, and that's about it.

ID doesn't even make a serious attempt at playing by those rules. And in fact, Behe has proven less than credible when the falsifiable aspects of his theories have been falsified. He resorts to the same standby that ID proponents, reflexologists, and astrologers all fall back on: excuse-making.

Second, there is ample evidence that the scientific establishment systematically excludes references to a designer. Many in the scientific establishment are explicit about the fact that their methodological commitments preclude any reference to anything other than purely materialistic forces.

This is awfully difficult to square with the fact that most scientists -- even evolutionary biologists -- themselves believe in a creator. Methinks you mistake a recognition that a creator is outside the scope of what science can tell us with a prejudice against the creator. The two are not even remotely close to being the same thing. And the view that science can't tell us about God is entirely consistent with the Christian view of faith. So this is far from this being an anti-God view.

Now there are certainly some scientists who don't believe in God, and even some (e.g. Dawkins) who believe that science is evidence against God. But these are far from typical, and it's highly disingenuous to argue as though they were.

I wasn't building a case, I was stating a falsifiable theory.

I didn't recognize that you were simply stating a theory, and you're probably correct that I misused the straw man term. I thought you were asserting that the theory is true. In any case, the theory is not falsifiable, for reasons given here and in several linked essays. However, Jeff frowns on the use of "BS" on his site. :) So let's just say that the theory as given is bunk.

But as repeatedly stated, it doesn't matter whether or not it's bunk. What matters is whether or not it's well-established science. It isn't. And until it is, it has no place in a high school classroom. Period.

1. the "method" has in fact changed significantly over time, so the argument's premise is flawed

As above, I strongly dispute this.

The existing methods have enabled us to build desktop computers, but haven't helped us solve the mysteries of cosmology, for example.

You're joking, right? You're seriously arguing that we're no closer now to understanding cosmology than we were even 100 years ago? Sorry, chum, but cosmology has made quantum leaps even in just the last few decades. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you don't accept these advances, which your prejudice toward the "God did it" explanation would explain in part. But to say that our current methods of scientific inquiry haven't worked well for cosmology is a grand insult to the likes of Einstein, Bohr, and Hawking.

And the same can be said of any "scientific" theory based on the criterion of falsifiability, including Darwinian evolution, which is remarkable in its capacity to adapt to apparent flaws in the observable data.

Oh, poppycock! Show me human remains that date to the Cambrian and evolution is done, period. Show me some fossil sequences that are badly out of date order, and evolution is in serious trouble. As Darwin himself said, if you can show me a feature that formed in one species for the exclusive benefit of some other species, evolution by natural selection is "shattered."

The fact is, evolutionary theory makes many predictions which are both testable and realistically falsifiable.

At some point, if a critique of a purportedly irreducibly complex system is correct, we will arrive at the smallest possible elements of the system which, having been shown to not be irreducibly complex, will completely falsify the theory with respect to that system.

Baloney. It's exactly the same as the "transitional fossil" problem. For years, creationists fought evolution on the grounds that there ought to be transitional fossils (one of those testable, falsifiable predictions that evolutionary theory supposedly doesn't make), but after transitional fossil M was found between fossils A and Z, they objected that there was no transition to be found between A and M or M and Z. As fossils G and S were found, they objected again, and so on ad infinitum. It's the same with irreducible complexity, and Behe has demonstrated this with his subsequent defenses.

What I'm suggesting is simply the Kuhnian view of scientific paradigm shifts.

The problem here is that you ignore the fact that controversial ideas often do survive the process. Look at Quantum Physics for a perfect example of this. Talk about a concept that the scientific establishment at the time (including Einstein) despised! Yet the evidence for it proved to be so compelling, that honest scientists could no longer ignore it. That "so compelling" part is the part that ID proponents such as yourself seem to want to skip completely.

That's the issue here, in a nutshell. You take Kuhn too far; even farther than Kuhn himself ever intended. Yes, scientists are reluctant to accept changes to established theory, and the bigger the change, the more likely they are to accept it. But in the face of enough evidence, they do eventually accept it. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing either that they can't or won't ever accept such seismic changes in theory -- demonstrably untrue -- or that the reluctance of scientists to accept a seismic change such as ID is in and of itself evidence of its validity, and that's absurd on its face, because by that rationale, anything overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific establishment must be true.

Now it could be that you're arguing neither of those two things, in which case I'm completely missing your point in citing Kuhn. It could be I misremember Kuhn and that he argued that this resistance made the current method unworkable (I'd disagree if that's what he argued). But as I recall, all Kuhn was saying was that the scientific establishment was highly resistant to change, not that it was immune to it.

Why should things like string theory, which might just be crazy nonsense, get published in establishment journals, while ID doesn't?

How about "because there's more evidence to support them?" Or "because the math seems to work out?" And by the way, a few ID papers (and other God-friendly papers) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Apart from ID, studies concerning the efficacy of prayer have made it. They simply haven't survived the peer-review process. You seem to argue that there's some sort of blacklist against such work, when there clearly is not.

Because the scientific establishment's methodlogical [sic] pre-commitment is to exclude God a priori.

See above. What more can I say, other than I think you're very wrong about this?

String theory ... [doesn't] challenge that paradigm.

Really? String theory posits six additional dimensions that we have no way of measuring or detecting or proving. I'd say that's a pretty big challenge to the empirically verifiable or falsifiable paradigm that you claim excludes God a priori.

The fossil record no longer supports a particular evolutionary pathway for a given organism? Fine, there must be some other pathway. The genetic data suggest different relationships among certain organisms than our evolutionary model previously predicted? Fine, there must be some other way to explain the relationships.

As noted above, that only works within some very strict limitations. Dinosaurs-to-birds instead of dinosaurs-to-lizards is a vastly different thing than discovering pre-Cambrian mammals.

All of this goes to Quine's critique of the scientific method: all obseravations [sic] are theory-laden, and the observer always tries to fit the data into her theory.

But don't you see? This is precisely why the peer review process at which ID proponents scoff is so critically important! Believe it or not, other scientists won't necessarily share the same preconceptions (and they're a notoriously critical lot), such that when many scientists confirm it for themselves, it's a good bet there's something to it. But here you seem to want it both ways. The preconceptions of ID proponents should be respected, while the preconceptions of its opponents somehow cloud their judgment and make them assess the theory unfairly.

(One example of an irreducibly complex system is a standard mousetrap -- take away the base, spring, lever or latch, and the trap effectively ceases functioning).

Did you not even look at my links? That mousetrap was shown to not be irreducibly complex, and Behe shifted the goal posts. Had he admitted that this particular example had been falsified, you might have a point. Instead, he regressed in precisely the way Kevin and I objected to.

All in all, you make some interesting points, but you don't bother to address why ID should get a pass that other fields of scientific inquiry don't get. And you don't bother to address how we solve the snake oil / penicillin problem. It's not hard to see why not.

Also, we've got two concurrent arguments running here. We've spent a lot of time arguing whether or not ID is legitimate science (with you and Jeff saying it is, and Kevin and I saying it isn't), but the bigger, more important issue here is whether or not ID is established science worthy of a high school classroom. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it is.

[tgirsch]

By the way, have some more critique of irreducible complexity theory. The burden of proof is on the people who posit irreducible complexity, and so far they have failed to meet that burden.

Anyway, scrolling back through this thread, there are several questions I have asked (some of them repeatedly) that remain unanswered. To wit:

Why should we allow ID into high school science classrooms (henceforth "the classroom") but not also allow Flat Earth theory, Young Earth theory, magnet therapy, and reflexology, and who knows what else, back into the classroom?

Related to the above, why should ID qualify for a special exemption, not having to follow the rules that other fields of scientific inquiry are bound by?

What, precisely, are the "central claims of ID" that can be empirically (or otherwise independently) verified?

What, really, has Kuhn got to do with anything?

How do you resolve the snake oil / penecillin problem?

How do you square your proposition that scientists are a priori biased against God with the fact that most of them believe in God?

[dopderbeck]

Tom,

The meaning of "test" may have changed somewhat, simply because you can't replicate millions of years of evolution (or cosmology or geology, for that matter) in a lab. Thus, despite your objections, the "method" has not substantially changed.

Changed "somewhat?" C'mon, Tom, admit that Popper's ideas were revolutionary and that "science" isn't some monolithic, unchanging force.

This is awfully difficult to square with the fact that most scientists -- even evolutionary biologists -- themselves believe in a creator.

Not at all. My point isn't that most scientists are atheists. My point is that the methodology of science excludes reference to a creator / God. Do you dispute that point? Do you think an argument that refers to God or to divine agency (e.g., miracles) can be considered "science"?

So let's just say that the theory as given is bunk.But as repeatedly stated, it doesn't matter whether or not it's bunk. What matters is whether or not it's well-established science. It isn't. And until it is, it has no place in a high school classroom. Period.

So now the ground has shifted. We were arguing, I thought, about whether claims about irreducible complexity could be considered "science" at all. I proposed one simple falsifiable model of irreducible complexity. Now, you're shifting the argument to whether all of ID is "established science" and talking about its place in high school classrooms. Will you concede that the specific irreducible complexity model I proposed is a "scientific" claim, regardless of its ultimate merit?

As to whether ID is an "established" science, what "established" even means and why we should care about that, and what should be taught in high schools, I personally would like to leave that for another thread. I'm a bit quirky about this within my own (Christian) faith community, but I'm not so sure ID is ready for the public school "science" classroom, which is why I agreed with Jeff's original point that ID shouldn't be politicized. Of course, I'm also pretty sure that evolution, as it's taught in the average public high school classroom, is "science" either. (Without straying too far from the main point, I think there's a big difference between a concept of descent with modifications, which I believe is a "scientific" concept with good support in observable data, and the metanarrative of evolution as an explanation for everything, which is how it's usually taught).

The problem here is that you ignore the fact that controversial ideas often do survive the process. Look at Quantum Physics for a perfect example of this. Talk about a concept that the scientific establishment at the time (including Einstein) despised! Yet the evidence for it proved to be so compelling, that honest scientists could no longer ignore it.

You've partly got this right. Paradigm shifts do happen. But they don't happen principally on the basis of the merits of the new paradigm's ideas. A paradigm shift requires both a meritorious idea and a dynamic, brilliant proponent / expositor of them (like Einstein). Only then does the new paradagim start to break through the entrenched views. I'd agree that ID doesn't seem to have an Einstein yet. The community of science simply is not the purely objective place you want it to be. It's rivalrous, competitive, and entirely human. (BTW, let me put in a little shameless plug here for an article I published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology on open source biotechnology, which discusses some of these issues about the community of science in more detail: pdf copy is here)

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing either that they can't or won't ever accept such seismic changes in theory -- demonstrably untrue -- or that the reluctance of scientists to accept a seismic change such as ID is in and of itself evidence of its validity, and that's absurd on its face, because by that rationale, anything overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific establishment must be true.

No, I'm not arguing either of those things. You (and/or Kevin) argued that the apparent failure of ID to convince institutional science, as evidenced by things like publication in peer reviewed journals, is strong evidence of ID's weakness as science. My response is that the rejection of ID by the scientific establishment is not surprising because ID represents a major paradigm shift, so the scientific establishment's hostile response to ID doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Really? String theory posits six additional dimensions that we have no way of measuring or detecting or proving. I'd say that's a pretty big challenge to the empirically verifiable or falsifiable paradigm that you claim excludes God a priori.

Huh? The paradigm I'm referring to is that science proceeds without any reference to God / a designer. String theory requires no such reference, and therefore doesn't challenge that reigning paradigm. As to whether string theory is falsifiable, I guess that's why some physicists call string theorists "brain dead pot smokers" (as Kevin noted).

You're joking, right? You're seriously arguing that we're no closer now to understanding cosmology than we were even 100 years ago? Sorry, chum, but cosmology has made quantum leaps even in just the last few decades.

I didn't say any such thing. I said cosmology has left us with many unsolved mysteries. It has not been nearly as successful at problem solving as, say, applied engineering. There are questions a cosmology based on methodological naturalism seems unable to answer.

This is precisely why the peer review process at which ID proponents scoff is so critically important!

I never said peer review isn't important or valuable. What I said is that peer review is a human process that reflects the basic precommitments of the reviewer. Something that head-butts those basic precommitments -- particularly work that suggests God has a place at the "science" table -- is likely to face fierce resistance. All of which is simply to dilute the argument you and Kevin were making about ID articles not appearing in many established peer reviewed journals.

Did you not even look at my links? That mousetrap was shown to not be irreducibly complex, and Behe shifted the goal posts.

No, I didn't read your links, though I'm pretty sure I've read most of what you linked before. I think link dumping is an unfair method of argument in a discussion like this. If you have a point, summarize it yourself. In any event, I have read some of the critiques of the mousetrap example, and they miss the point. John MacDonald's supposedly reducibly complex mousetraps, for example, strike me as unworkable and silly, and I'm pretty sure any competent mechanical engineer could show why they wouldn't work.

But the moustrap itself is a diversion. Do you honestly suggest that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex system using Behe's definition? Do you really think any engineered device can be broken into components that have an independently useful function? Obviously, there are irreducibly complex systems that have been designed by man. The concept of irreducible complexity, then, is not, as Kevin said, just "I know it when I see it" -- and my little explanation of the concept, including the mousetrap, wasn't given to prove the concept, but simple to refute Kevin's rhetoric.

you don't bother to address why ID should get a pass that other fields of scientific inquiry don't get. And you don't bother to address how we solve the snake oil / penicillin problem. It's not hard to see why not.

Excellently snippy, but besides the point of our original dscussion. Our original discussion was about what counts as "science" and whether ID, specifically irreducible complexity, counts. I explained some of my views about the philosophy of science, showed that your criterion of "empirical verifiability" no longer holds even in the scientific establishment, and then, using Kevin's criterion of falsifiability, provided an example of irreducible complexity that can be falsified. You are trying to shift the discussion to the merits of the scientific claims made by ID, which is an interesting question, but not the question we were discussing.

Back to the original question(s): given what we've discussed about the philosophy of science, and given that ID can provide falsifiable models for things like irreducible complexity, why doesn't ID qualify as "science"?

[Dawn Treader]

Excellent thread guys -- maybe the best the Dawn Treader has ever seen.

I think David O. is arguing this point better than I ever could. My argumentation is going to sound a little like a clanging gong. But here goes...

My original points were:

Most people who have strong opinions on ID don't have a clue what it means.

I think that point still stands (even though "don't have a clue" is too snarky and does not apply to any of the commenters on this thread). Tom and Kevin have strong opinions on ID which they consider to be pseudoscience. However, having never read a full length book expounding any of the arguments, they continue to insist that ID is on the same level as snake oil, flat earth, sasquatch, and a host of other silly subjects. Whether Darwin's Black Box or Intelligent Design is popular literature or ready for scientific journals is irrelevant to my point. Either way, you guys have have not personally invested yourselves in reading primary sources -- and rely on the opinions of the scientific establishment as your basis. As David has pointed out, the scientific intelligentsia is hardly a group without pre-committments, paradigms, tenure, politics and host of other relevant factors. The chief precommittment is, God, or any hint of divine agency, is not allowed at the table. Out of bounds. Foul. Penalty flag. Illegal. A priori.

Therefore, you owe it yourselves to go check out a couple of books from the library and get up to speed on what intelligent design really is. It has nothing to the second law of thermodynamics, for example. This current thread, moreover, has not even touched on one of the major areas of I.D. -- it has only touched on the concept of irreducible complexity.

[Dawn Treader]

Everyone completely ducked point number four. Detecting design is already an established science. Nobody cared until biology was brought into the fray. Ever wonder why it is biology that generates the sparks?

It goes back to the "God-not-allowed" precommittment. That should be painfully obvious.

[Dawn Treader]

David's point about Kuhn and Popper is extremely relevant. Why?

Because the entire argument I have seen presented here against ID is that "it is not science, so you can't teach it as science".

Premise one seems entirely up for debate.

If you are stuck with an 18th century definition of science, then the argument completely disintegrates.

That is why the discussion about Kuhn and Popper and so forth is completely relevant. Science is not static -- it is 'evolving'. Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)