Re: Alvin Plantinga: Whether ID is science isn't semantics


Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:


Therefore, this reason for excluding the supernatural from science is clearly a mistake. But, there is the judge's claim that science excludes reference to the supernatural, independent of concerns about verifiability and falsifiability. Reference to the supernatural just can't be part of science. This idea is sometimes called "methodological naturalism." But what is the reason - if any - for accepting methodological naturalism?


My standard response to any ID "science unfairly excludes the
supernatural from science boo hoo hoo" baloney:


The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps.
They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations
and predictions

Nothing in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any
"supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke
as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis,
and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of
your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the
slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and
carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects
of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or
"non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote
viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or
non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite
wrong.

However, what science does require is that any supernatural or
non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to
steps 3, 4 and 5. And here is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstrate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID
hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One
claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity
between humans and chimps by asserting that "An Unknown Intelligent
Designer" created both chimps and humans, but used common features in a
common design. Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the
scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers,
including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome
that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the
appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a
common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C
gene in both products".

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What
predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent
Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then
we would also expect to see . . . ? IDers, please fill in the blank.
And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point
out some negative predictions -- things which, if found, would falsify
the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is
wrong. So, then -- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the
"common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their
voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given any
testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified
through experiment.

Take note here -- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair
exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact no limits imposed
by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than
the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions
they make must be testable by experiments or further observations.)
They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they
like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to
steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes
using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good
Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to pop these genetic
sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine -- just tell us what
experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us
that The Unknown Intelligent Designer didn't like humans very much and
therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works
for me -- just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we
can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the
supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or
observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is
unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore
hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window.
Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons,
devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, whatever god you like.
Feel free to include and invoke all of them. As many as you need. All
the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the
scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to
invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between
chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed any
other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific
method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is not any
presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science
that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID
"theory" to make any testable predictions. Even if we let them invoke
all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design
"theory" still can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining
about is not that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic
explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic
explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like
every other hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its
"explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't have to.
In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have
a privileged position -- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by
science without being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of
the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5,
and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of
their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what
their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism"
or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever else they want to call it)
boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged
and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other
scientific hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses,
whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing
process that everyone else's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go
through. If IDers cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same
scientific method that everyone else has to, then they have no claim to
be "science". Period.






================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: The Dover (PA) Evolution Case: A True Win for Education?
    ... event is not a scientific event, and applied the non science / religion ... Has the "scientific method" become your God? ... Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions ... in a common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and sciences anti-magic bias
    ... that "science unfairly rules out supernatural causes". ... The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. ... Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions ... in a common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New Howlers from Nelson
    ... I do agree with some of the posters that the science side is messing up ... The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. ... Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions ... in a common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: On using the Scientific Method on supernatural phenomena
    ... be written, wouldn't it be science? ... The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. ... Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions ... in a common design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alvin Plantinga: Whether ID is science isnt semantics
    ... there is the judge's claim that science excludes ... The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. ... Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions ... common design to produce both chimps and humans, ...
    (talk.origins)