Changes

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==

'''Origins science''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref> ''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inferrence is most reasonable.   

'''Origins science''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref> ''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.   

[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Ernst Mayr]]

[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Ernst Mayr]]

Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought at '''idthefuture.com'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/a_note_to_teachers_part_3_science_and_th.html</ref><br /><br />

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use [[abductive reasoning]] that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought at '''idthefuture.com'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/a_note_to_teachers_part_3_science_and_th.html</ref><br /><br />

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The [[National Academy of Sciences|'''National Academy of Sciences''']] [[(NAS|('''NAS''')]] makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' <ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55.</ref>, the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The [[National Academy of Sciences|'''National Academy of Sciences''']] [[(NAS|('''NAS''')]] makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' <ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55.</ref>, the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":