The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Of course we know that the scientific community does not accept ID as an alternative theory to Darwinism. One wonders what would cause ID to be an acceptable scientific alternative? First, let me state clearly that by the modern definition of science, I do not believe it to be a scientific theory, neither do I believe it to be wrong, just that it doesn’t fit into a uniformatarian naturalistic worldview. The fundamental issue holding back ID is fear. Fear of theocracy. Empiricism demands that a theory is not supported unless it is backed by independently, observable evidence. As it goes, there is lots of that for evolution whereas ID would prefer to leave it unexplained and mysterious. Because of this, ID is part of a sinister plot to introduce theocracy. Our experience of theocracy is not a good one. One need only look at the Salem Witch Trials and the rule of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to deduce that.
But I think the view that ID is not science is distorted by our perception of it’s ultimate motivations. In other words, our view of what it’s objectives are rules how we view the methodology. Thus, many hardcore naturalists mis-state the design argument, not because there is no evidence but because their underlying world view rules what can be accepted as evidence.
Ken Miller, a biologist at Brown University lectures campuses in the US on The Collapse of Intelligent Design. He spends two hours tearing down the arguments for ID in a witty and provocative manner, revealing the true intentions of it’s adherents. During the lecture he suggests that a Design proponent cannot explain the complexity of the bacterial flagellum and would simply say “The designer made it that way.” From the perspective of a Intelligent Design proponent this seems no different to the conclusion an evolutionist would come to. They would say “It was evolution that did it.” Miller seems to mistake what the empirical evidence actually is. His view of the scientific method employed by Behe et al is one which makes a leap in the testing area, one which administers no test and therefore produces no empirical evidence. I believe his mistake is not recognising that the design *is* the test and the inference is the empirical evidence. To lay the arguments out formally according to the scientific method Miller’s view of the evidence is thus:
1) Hypothesis: Blood clotting implies design. Study of the systems show it has mechanical requirements
2) Test: No test can be made for the designer.
3) Empirical evidence: none
4) Conclusion: It has been designed
The Design proponent’s actual test is:
1) Hypothesis: The blood clotting system shows elements of design
2) Test: Study for irreducible complexity
3) Empirical evidence: Cannot be reduced. Experience shows design
4) Conclusion: It has been designed
Design theorists are not proposing that their test can prove the designer but that empirical evidence shows that a machine has been designed because it is irreducibly complex.
Someone as erudite as Miller should be able to see this given that he is a theist yet baffingly, he mis-represents the Irreducible Complexity (IC) argument in his lectures. He claims that Behe’s argument from Darwin’s Black Box is as follows:
If a structure such as the Bacterial Flagellum (BF) were to be taken apart then the parts would be useless on their own. Therefore, devices such as the Bacterial Flagellum are Irreducibly Complex.
Miller essentially states that IC is falsified because parts of the BF can be used elsewhere. I will allow Behe to state his argument in full
“A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39
Notice how Miller has shifted Behe’s argument from the function of the machine to the function of the parts independent of the machine. Behe has never argued that the parts cannot be used elsewhere, only that in order for the current function of the machine, all the parts have to be there. Yet Miller continues to mis-represent the argument.
So then, what will make ID acceptable as science? I believe the mistaken notion that theocracy is the ultimate aim of ID and simply an alternative view to philosophical naturalism being presented to our children in the classroom. Otherwise, we’re telling them what to think and not how to think.
Steve Heath
