Flood of News
Current Affairs, Origins, Religion, Science March 5th, 2008Pro-intelligent design activists are attempting to seek protection of their views in the classroom.
The institute also has been pushing an Academic Freedom Petition, which pushes for an academic freedom act, which says that evolution should be taught with its “strengths and weaknesses” discussed and that teachers should have the “right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.” Orlando Sentinel
What they seem to miss is the intelligent design is certainly a view but not a scientific view.
Not that all religious movements are clock stoppers. It appears that the Vatican’s new best buddy is Galileo: they plan to erect a statue in his honour. They could have been more contemporary and erected a statue of Darwin but I guess they still get (occasionally unwarranted) criticism for the Galileo affair.
I was reading in the IT news site The Register, “Malaysian woman jailed for worshipping teapot” – you might wonder what the IT angle is on this story? To quote them: “Who cares? You get one chance in your career to write the Malaysian teapot-worship headline, and by the Lord Harry and Saint George this hack wasn’t going to let it pass.”
On my recent theme of happiness being a cause or an effect (or perhaps neither), a study conducted by Edinburgh University concluded that happiness is largely determined by genetics. Remember that if you are into hedonism. 
Lastly, not a news item but a quote (and perhaps a motto for naturalists)
“Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Groucho Marx
Anti Citizen One
March 6th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“What they seem to miss is the intelligent design is certainly a view but not a scientific view.”
I would in part agree… ‘only in part?’
Well only in part insofar as “intelligent design” as an account of a theistic or deistic intelligence or purposeful design behind the observable natural phenomena of a universe is a philosophical doctrine.
But unlike young-earth creationism for example it ‘concedes’ (though I dont feel that to be the appropriate term) that the scientific view of the universe is valid.
It could be appropriate therefore to talk of intelligent design as being (in the hegelian sense) a synthesis of two distinctly different ideas.
The philosophical thesis that the universe is ‘created’ by an intelligent being and that its design was meaningful and full of purpose.
The scientific counter-thesis that the origins and the development of the universe and all that is within it can be explained in materialistic terms.
The synthesis (of intelligence design) that these two theses are not incompatible.
Note I describe the scientific materialist thesis as a counter-thesis not an antithesis. But this is a retrospective definition applied by those who approve of the final synthesis. For those who reject the synthetic approach out of hand – i.e. an either/or creationism or pure materialism no synthesis is possible or desirable.
Now even the most die-hard materialist would concede that philosophically (as opposed to scientifically) a synthesis of these two views is possible.
Philosophically as opposed to scientifically becuase the theistic thesis does not belong to the materialistic scientific language game per se.
So the debate is not whether the synthesis is possible, but whether it is desirable.
Some materialists would state – its a nice idea but… the God-hypothesis is an unneccessary addition to the self-sufficient material explanation of the universe. Others may simply call it a god-of-the-gaps type argument.
Two points in response.
The God-hypothesis (if we use philosophical language games to define God) is outside of the scope of the pure-scientific language game. Therefore if Intelligent Design is presented as a ‘Scientific Theory’ then clearly either God or the science has to go.
But if Intelligent Design is presented as a “philosophical theory” with attached scientific credentials, then it is not unnecessary to postulate the God-hypothesis.
The key here is the ‘attached scientific credentials’ what this means is that the proponents of the Intelligent design theory seek to verify their philosophical viewpoint with appropriately compatible scientific evidence.
As for the ‘isn’t this a god-of-the-gaps-type’ theory we have to investigate its claims very closely in order to make sure that it is not. A point of view where myself and Richard Dawkins actually are in complete agreement.
What intelligent design must not do is present itself by saying:
“Science cannot explain this therefore there is a God”.
What intelligent design must do (logically in fact if its claims to adopting the scientific thesis is to be valid) is to say:
“Science CAN explain this therefore there is a God”
So why does a phislosophical explanation (there is a God) need a scientific account of the universe (big bang, evolution etc.)?
Well apart from the obvious issue of compatibility and the really strong desire/urge to provide a rational account – as opposed to a creationist account – the purpose of the synthesis is to discuss one sole philosophical issue “purpose”.
The question that this hinges on is:- the universe can be explained with recourse to physical laws, whether it be the falling of a body to earth (gravity) or the movements of natural selection that result in the formation of a particular characteristic, indeed the whole scientific ‘project’ can be described as the process of explain the causal whys and hows. So if the universe obeys the laws of physics, why does it do so and could it have been otherwise?
Stephen Hawking famously said that if we could answer that question then we would “know the mind of God” – and though he may have been attempting to be provocative when he made that statement, it is precisely the point that ‘intelligent design’ advocates wish to address. By asking about the fundamental cause of the universe, they are conducting a search for God.
There are other points I could make (but will save for another post) as to why to posit the universe as its own cause is not (in some eyes) a valid scientific response. And why the multiverse theory (favoured by Richard Dawkins) is neither an evidence-based assertion nor a meaningful proposition.
Also certain philosophical points concerning the “nature” of God as an uncaused cause would need to be addressed. Not to forget the entirely seperate validity of scientific truth-claims (there was a big-bang) as opposed to theistic ones (why one God and not many?)
In conclusion then I feel there are two things we can say about Intelligent Design.
1) It is a Philosophical Worldview that defines itself as meaningful by having recourse to scientific explanations of the universe.
2) It is therefore not a scientific theory (the science is being used as supporting evidence) but it is more than just a philosophical theory (which need not have any recourse to external affairs to be uttered).
Neither Science by itself, nor Religious belief by itself NEED intelligent design to enhance its meaningfulness or further its credibility.
Therefore I would propose that it be viewed as a new language game that plants its two feet solidly into two different language game camps. It is a philosophical theory that promotes empiricism and rational enquiry. It is a scientific theory that doesn’t disregard the notion of purpose or meaning.