14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
However, this ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. If a supreme being was not responsible, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox - if intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence?
However, this ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. If a supreme being was not responsible, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox - if intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence?
===Defining intelligent design as science===
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]] of the [[natural world]] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to [[materialism|materialist]] [[metaphysical naturalism]] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived [[natural theology]] or [[natural philosophy]] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories]</ref> This presents a [[demarcation problem]], which in the [[philosophy of science]] is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:
:* ''Consistent'' (internally and externally)
:* ''Parsimonious'' (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see [[Occam's Razor]])
:* ''Useful'' (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
:* ''Empirically testable and falsifiable'' (see [[Falsifiability]])
:* ''Based on multiple observations'', often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
:* ''Correctable and dynamic'' (changes are made as new data are discovered)
:* ''Progressive'' (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
:* ''Provisional'' or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,<ref>Intelligent design is generally internally consistent and logical only within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: that complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer are not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of intelligent design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref>Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref>The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments.</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref>That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.<ref>Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.</ref>
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."<ref>The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory <cite>"because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</cite> [http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf Nobel Laureates Initiative] (PDF file)</ref> And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."<ref> Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. [[20 October]] [[2005]]. [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out]</ref>
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for [[scientific evidence]] used by most courts, the [[Daubert Standard]]. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four [[Daubert Standard|Daubert criteria]] are:
:* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
:* The methods should preferably be published in a [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] journal.
:* There should be a known rate of [[error]] that can be used in evaluating the results.
:* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In deciding ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' on [[December 20]], [[2005]], Judge [[John E. Jones III]] agreed with the plaintiffs, [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruling that]] "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Politics]]