- Comparative religion (3)
- Culture & society (75)
- History (28)
- Notable Quotes (18)
- Personal story (13)
- Politics (32)
- Science and faith (114)
- Uncategorized (44)
- January 24, 2012: Evolution in Excel
- January 11, 2012: Steno's Applied Science
- January 9, 2012: "Love" in the Bible and Qur'an
- November 6, 2011: The Problem with My Spouse
- October 23, 2011: Mind Brain Controversy
- August 26, 2011: How Old Is The Earth?
- July 31, 2011: The Problem with Embracing All Religions
- July 8, 2011: Why do you call God your father?
- June 1, 2011: About Being Basically Good
- May 1, 2011: Lizards and the Law
Blogroll
Chat
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Science v. Theology
I have notices for some time in ID-evolution debates (or evolution-ID debates, if you prefer), that while ID defenders stick with arguments based on empirical evidence, defenders of evolution are more often veering off into arguments about the nature of God: For example, “Why would God make an organ that..” I first noticed this theology problem with evolutionists claiming that ID theorists were just trying to sneak God back into science (the main reason why evolutionists try to push ID theory into a subheading under creationism). Early on, when ID theorists responded that ID does not specify who or what the “designer” is, Eugenia Scott’s quip was, “If it’s not God, then it’s someone with the same job description!” How does an atheist come off drawing conclusions about the job description or any other characteristic of God?
Now, as Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute points out, the evolutionists’ argument has digressed so far as to call ID “bad theology.” When asked why he thinks this is happening, he proposes that there are strategic reasons for atheistic evolutionists to build alliances with theists who have bought into evolution. “Religious people are falling for intelligent design,” and the majority of evolution’s outspoken critics are Christians (though not all). Jay Richards does a good job of pointing out that there line of reasoning is not reasoning at all. What business do atheists have telling Christians, or any other theists for that matter, what they should believe about the nature of God?
I kept waiting for another point to come out in this broadcast, but it didn’t. I guess one point per broadcast is best, but I found it frustrating.
That other point is not minor. It should be irrelevant what spurs one into investigation. What do the data say in relation to the hypotheses? The assumption by neglect is that belief trumps findings. Excuse me, but isn’t that supposed to be a hallmark difference between science and theology?
Why a person originally proposes a theory could be based on materialism, revelation, superstition, whatever. It’s irrelevant to the scientific method: Theory > refutable hypothesis > observation > findings consistent with hypothesis or no. Suppose I theorize, for whatever reason, that the earth rests on the back of a giant sea turtle that moves our planet around the solar system. I hypothesize that if this is true, then we should detect that the earth moves in relation to other planets. There is evidence of this, so that hypothesis can be submitted as evidence supportive of the theory. It is evidence, regardless of whether one thinks it is conclusive, and the scientific response is to pursue other hypotheses, whether one agrees with the theory or not.
I quickly follow this line of reasoning by acknowledging that there are many other hypotheses that could be proposed with observations from public data to refute the theory, for example, photographs of earth from space (no turtle). Notice that this refutation requires no theological arguments. Science needs no theological arguments to do good science, and the fact that evolutionists are gravitating to theological arguments to debunk ID is a strong evidence that they can no longer find strong scientific arguments to refute ID! The evidence for ID is building in science, and the evidence for ID is also building in the kinds of arguments that evolutionists are choosing.
June 28, 2010 at 1:06 am
I recently listened to a podcast by the CS Lewis Society with you as a guest. It rekindled a passion for me to understand the arguments of evolutionary theories. I stumbled across this and was wondering if you could answer and comment on some questions I have. You mentioned in the podcast that someone could leave an unrelated comment. This is what I’m doing.
The following is an excerpt found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
*****The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By “testable”, we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.
For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be “as they are”. No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of “earlier” events intact. In general, creationist and “intelligent design” conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons. Both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and neither one makes risky, specific predictions.*****
What would your response to this be? What would some predictions be if intelligent design (ID) was true and some if it was not true? My goal here is to discover if ID is scientific or fits the scientific method. I’ve always assumed it wasn’t in the sense that most ID theories are not testable. However, I’m not very knowledgeable in the subject. On the other hand, there are arguments for ID that seem scientific, but some seem to be common sense arguments, which is explained in the same referenced page as unscientific.
*****Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don’t curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don’t move, and that objects heavier-than-air can’t have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.*****
I am fairly familiar with all these instances of failed common sense; this argument contrasting common sense with science convinces me.
This a lot of questions to be answered I know and without proper context, but I get stumped up on the details and discussions of this matter intrigue me and continually test my faith.
July 17, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Most of the arguments I’ve seen against ID haven’t been arguments at all. It’s just labeled as “unscientific” and that’s that.
February 13, 2011 at 12:01 am
“What business do atheists have telling Christians, or any other theists for that matter, what they should believe about the nature of God?”
Hilarious. The point is that no matter what someone “believes” about the “nature of God”, that “belief” can never be scientific.
“the fact that evolutionists are gravitating to theological arguments to debunk ID is a strong evidence that they can no longer find strong scientific arguments to refute ID!”
Hilarious. First you would have to actually define “ID”. Then there could be talk about whether or not there is any scientific evidence for such a hypothesis. If “ID” is simply “an unknown designer did something at some time in the past”, the how could a scientist find any evidence of this? Is there “Kilroy was here” written in English in human DNA?