Historically, the philosophically-minded who have the bright idea to foray into the wild and wonderful world of the philosophy of science are often appropriately accosted and crucified by the scientific community. But then again, I often assume history makes exceptions. So, acknowledging that any real scientist has the right to step in and tell me to bugger off, I want to offer a few thoughts on the evolution/intelligent design (ID) debate that caught my attention yesterday in a NY Times article as well as a feature in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on the Discovery Institute, a think-tank significant in the ID movement.
I’m going to take us back to highschool logic class here and talk about induction and deduction. Inductive logic, as you will recall, is based on deriving conclusions based on observable premises. Induction does not have the logical strength of deductive logic, in which, to quote the ever-trusty Wikipedia, “the conclusion is of lesser or equal generality than the premises, as opposed to inductive reasoning, where the conclusion is of greater generality than the premises.” So, to return to the hot topic, it seems evident that both evolution and ID are based on forms of inductive logic. Both try to offer conclusions of greater generality based on the specific observable premises. Darwin sails to the Galapagos, checks out a few finches, and claims that there must be a material explanation for the diversity of species. Evolution is such a material explanation. Michael Behe does the exact same thing with blood clotting, arguing that it cannot be explained by evolution and could only exist as the result of ID.
The interesting thing to me, and this is where I am going out on a limb, is that evolution can then be utilized for certain forms of scientific deductive reasoning which lead to new and possible inquiry, whereas ID does not allow such a possibility. Why? Because ID as a first principle ultimately ends up outside our ability to observe or calculate. It is beyond the material and while the material may give evidence that it is there, that is about all you can do with it. Which is fine, but not very helpful for science. Evolution, on the other hand, gives you a working premise by which new experiments, predictions, and observations can be generated. For example, according to one of the scientists quoted in the Times piece, the discovery of DNA was generated by the theory of evolution: if this material reality is at work, there must be some sort of code used to pass genetic information from one generation to the next. So scientists went to look for it. Evidence that an intelligent force created the universe is out there. But it doesn’t give us a method for further inquiry the way evolution does.
This, I think, is one key reason why scientists might be so up in arms over this debate. Sure, there are those who have an ideological commitment to secularism who are also in fighting mode (see Herbert A. Hauptman in the article cited below). Nevertheless, from a methodological perspective ID and evolution start at the same place but end up in different possibilities which are significant to science. One of these applications provides a material metalogic for exploring the world, while the other, because it is intrinsically an immaterial induction, cannot really be generalized by scientists for discovering how the world works now.
Which, in my mind, shows that (in theory) these two systems are actually not fully incompatible. As a case study, look at the Newtonian world view. God made the world like a giant watch run by ordered, observable, material principles. And then He stepped aside. Newton went at the world in an attempt to understand those material principles and so, from one perspective, he was as “atheistic” as Darwin. The point is that he was trying to understand the material reality he lived in using material principles. Many of the scientists of his day followed this program during the week and then went to church on Sunday to worship a God who in His infinite wisdom had made such a world.
I’m not calling for some sort of “ne’er the twain shall meet” dualism. I am all in favor of intelligent design scientists saying what it is they are able to say. But I also see that in one sense intelligent design cannot be a replacement for evolution. Perhaps a good ID scientist can tell me why I’m wrong. I’d be interested to hear.
[In a totally separate issue, for this discussion I have chosen to ignore the Foucauldian/Lyotardian critique of science as simply another discourse formation, etc. etc. (If you really want to see scientists foam at the mouth, just say Bruno Latour.)]
Check out this article (which I read after writing this entry.)
Another interesting read is the "Wedge Document," which the Discovery Institute acknowledged as its own, although unfortunately I was unable to link to it from their site. Here is DI's response to certain critics of the document.
Posted by pjaussen at August 23, 2005 10:42 AM | TrackBackPaul,
As usual I am deeply impressed by the way you reflect on topics and found your thoghts very insightful. I was wondering though about a point made in the Time article that you referred to:that the theory of evolution lead to the investigation of DNA. I do not understand how that was essential. If ID was the primary paragdim of science it would have still been observed that genetic traits are passed on from generation to generation and an exploration of why would have insued. Then Behe argued quite well, from my limited understanding ,that DNa and RNA could not possibly have "evoloved" independently of each other.
I find the debate much more generated not because of a resugent creationism...the secularists claim. but of the real inability of Darwinian evolution to account for the evidenece. And it's slow disintegration as a theory. Perhaps we are in a Kuhn paragdim shift...they are drawn out and painful.
Posted by: Dad at September 14, 2005 08:49 AMDad,
Since the first theorist of genetics was a monk, then you could probably make the good argument that DNA could have been discovered by a Intelligent Design advocate. I think the argument I was referring to is the one that because evolution *as a theory* required a complex mechanism of genetic inheritance, and thus *theoretically* posited something like DNA, scientists were able to ask the question and look for an answer. If you don't have a theory that requires such a complex mechanism, you might not go looking for it. What Behe and scientists like himself offer is an analysis of the thing once it has been posited, which is clearly valuable and worthwhile. Incidentally, Crick (I believe), one of the co-discoverers of DNA, later espoused a theory that it had been posited on planet earth by intelligent life from another planet; a less orthodox version of ID, I suppose.
Thanks for reading.
Posted by: paul at September 14, 2005 01:58 PM