Spring Break
Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters
John Wise, Contributing Writer, jwise@smu.edu
Issue date: 5/4/07 Section: Opinion
In his September 2005 opinion, the judge in this case, John E. Jones III, wrote that the "ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID." Judge Jones, on the three Discovery Institute experts' testimony: "Professor Behe has written that by ID he means 'not designed by the laws of nature,' and that it is 'implausible that the designer is a natural entity.'" "Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered." "Professor … Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural." What the ID people propose is a monumental change to the way science is practiced and has far-reaching implications.
Listen further to the transcripts of these hearings - they are astounding. Professor Behe, star witness for the ID proponents and Discovery Institute senior fellow, gave a Discovery Institute-approved definition of scientific theory in his testimony. Unfortunately for both Dr. Behe and the Discovery Institute, Eric Rothschild, the brilliant lawyer for the parents, asked Dr. Behe, "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in Intelligent Design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" And Dr. Behe answered, "Yes, that's correct."
Is this what America wants and needs? A definition of science that is so weak and neutered that astrology qualifies?
Judge Jones, a life-long Republican conservative, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush, spells it out clearly in his opinion: ID "presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Intelligent Design is not science, and in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Listen further to the transcripts of these hearings - they are astounding. Professor Behe, star witness for the ID proponents and Discovery Institute senior fellow, gave a Discovery Institute-approved definition of scientific theory in his testimony. Unfortunately for both Dr. Behe and the Discovery Institute, Eric Rothschild, the brilliant lawyer for the parents, asked Dr. Behe, "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in Intelligent Design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" And Dr. Behe answered, "Yes, that's correct."
Is this what America wants and needs? A definition of science that is so weak and neutered that astrology qualifies?
Judge Jones, a life-long Republican conservative, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush, spells it out clearly in his opinion: ID "presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Intelligent Design is not science, and in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 47
Jeff
posted 5/04/07 @ 7:02 AM CST
Very well written Professor Wise! Not only is ID not science but I feel that evolution only enhances my faith and strengthens my belief in God. Thanks for the great article!
Daniel S.
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:27 AM CST
As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?
What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www. (Continued…)
Infidel57
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:53 AM CST
A very good article except for the last paragraphs trying to reconciliate religion and science. It can't be done, at least with Christianity.
To be a Christian, you must believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that includes Original Sin. (Continued…)
Daniel
Daniel
posted 5/04/07 @ 9:18 AM CST
As a layman, my question to you is this... Why do you continue to use smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, and refuse to address the actual valid scientific arguments?
What about the 600+ supporters listed at http://www. (Continued…)
Reed Hanson
posted 5/04/07 @ 12:43 PM CST
If you're going to keep out ID, you'd better kick Evolution out of the classroom as "accepted science." I'd venture to say that, in my experience, proponents of Darwinian evolution are more religious in their zeal than any ID Christian could ever be. (Continued…)
Neil Johnson
posted 5/04/07 @ 6:57 PM CST
Wben Professor Wise tells us that "science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces", does he mean to exclude endeavors such as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence, archaeology, and forensics?
Certainly science can tell us whether or not an intelligent agent has acted, albeit with varying degrees of certainty. (Continued…)
Paul Burnett
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:27 PM CST
Thank you, John, for helping us understand why the New Creationists must not be allowed to succeed in spreading their ignorance.
For those interested, the National Center for Science Education has just released Kevin Padian's seminal testimony at the Dover trial, with his slide show: http://www. (Continued…)
Joshua Caleb
posted 5/05/07 @ 1:47 PM CST
you mention something about science being different from philosophy, i would agree with that. However, what most "scientists" don't realize is that Scientific Naturalism (which many if not most scientists hold to) is a philosophical stance, NOT a "scientific" stance. (Continued…)
Randy
posted 5/05/07 @ 2:50 PM CST
Wise: "Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.
"Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. (Continued…)
Bilbo
posted 5/05/07 @ 3:54 PM CST
Mike Gene has addressed Wise's essay at our blog, Telicthoughts, here:
http://telicthoughts.com/john-wise-and-id/
I agree with Mike's comments. Wise has assumed that ID invokes supernatural causes. (Continued…)
Post a Comment