Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters
John Wise, Contributing Writer, jwise@smu.edu
Issue date: 5/4/07 Section: Opinion
Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. 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. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.
This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects. The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature.
The Discovery Institute and the ID proponents that visited our campus this April are busy right now attempting to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.
A lawsuit (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District) brought before a U.S. Federal District Court in Harrisburg, Penn., by parents concerned about these issues has vividly illustrated the direction and the politics behind the Discovery Institute's effort to redefine science. The parents challenged a curriculum change by the Dover Board of Education that "…promotes the religious proposition of Intelligent Design as a competing scientific theory."
Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.
This actually matters and is important. If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects. The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature.
The Discovery Institute and the ID proponents that visited our campus this April are busy right now attempting to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.
A lawsuit (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District) brought before a U.S. Federal District Court in Harrisburg, Penn., by parents concerned about these issues has vividly illustrated the direction and the politics behind the Discovery Institute's effort to redefine science. The parents challenged a curriculum change by the Dover Board of Education that "…promotes the religious proposition of Intelligent Design as a competing scientific theory."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 45
Jeff
posted 5/04/07 @ 8:02 AM EST
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 @ 9:27 AM EST
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 @ 9:53 AM EST
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 @ 10:18 AM EST
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 @ 1:43 PM EST
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 @ 7:57 PM EST
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 @ 9:27 PM EST
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 @ 2:47 PM EST
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 @ 3:50 PM EST
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 @ 4:54 PM EST
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