Science and the Argument Against “Intelligent Design”

Feynman fondly iterated that science is the sum of, “Observation, Reason and Experiment.” Observation and Experiment should be clear enough, but what is Reason in science?

The cornerstone of modern scientific reason was laid by the great American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce, and re-enforced later by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. That cornerstone is the notion of FALSIFICATION. From what you know already, even if you haven't heard of falsification before, your intuition may give you a clue as to what it means, but the odds are that your intuition is wrong. So, let's see.

Consider the statement “God placed the Earth at the center of the universe.”

As we know, this statement held sway until relatively recently when the science of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo presented an alternative view that ultimately gave birth to the first truly predictive scientific explanation of the physical world in the work of Issac Newton.

Newton asserts that “Gravitation is a universal force.” It is a force, he demonstrates, that shaped the universe and, in particular, describes the motion of the planets.

Now we have two statements here, one is an assertion of faith, the other an assertion of science. “God placed the Earth at the center of the universe” is a statement that has no observable premises. “Gravitation is a universal force” is a statement based on the rigorous observations that came before Newton (by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo) and the accompanying calculus that makes precise predictions.

Falsification is dependent on predictions of the kind that Newton made. That is, for an idea to be falsifiable it must consist of a theory based on sound premises that makes a prediction that can be proved false, not merely verified.

Alleged actions of God are not falsifiable in this sense. Copernicus did not falsify the statement, “God placed the Earth at the center of the universe.” He simply showed the intuition to be mistaken, a faith not supported by the facts of observation.

In fact, Newton's theory has been falsified. Einstein's theory of general relativity falsifies Newton's theory since it shows that the phrase “Gravitation is a universal force” is false. Gravitation is not a force. It is inert and can be characterized as the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass.

Einstein's theory makes predictions that better fits observation.

In general, the more observations that can be explained by a single theory, the more reliable or more valuable the theory is considered. But arguing that God explains everything is simply an assertion born of no reasonable premise and it ignores the intrinsic value of “explanation” by avoiding it.

If we take a modern positivist view and account for the origin of life scientifically (and I have every reason to believe that such an account is within our grasp) we do not falsify any prediction of a scientific theory that argues "God did it." Since an assertion of faith is not science we simply show the intuition upon which the assertion is made to be wrong.

In any case, the subject of Evolutionary Theory is not the origin of life - it is the variation of species. The origin of life is an interesting related question, about which Evolutionary Theory says nothing in particular. True, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that life is emergent and the inevitable product within an unfolding universe, but Darwin's "Evolution of Species" does NOT make any scientific assertions about the origin of life - and that origin is an open question today.

However, even if "God did it" is the answer, that answer can never be considered a scientific one, since it is an assertion of faith and not falsifiable. Even if God turned up tomorrow and said "Dude, I did it!" it still would not be a scientific answer since there is no means to falsify the claim even though it might be verified by repeated demonstration.

The science of natural selection, the source of variation in species, has been demonstrated many times and is readily observed. But is it a falsifiable theory? Yes, it is because it provides explanation and makes predictions. The theory does not currently have the rigorous mathematical foundations of Newton's theories, but that challenge is significantly harder, since complexity lies at the core of the problem. But before you run off to falsify natural selection from a bunch of Wikipedia examples, consider what falsification of natural selection would lead to ... it would lead to a more robust scientific theory - it simply could never support a theory that "God did it."

All pleas to faith vanish in the face of good science.

Arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory simply illustrates an ignorance of what science is. That this is true shows the woeful inadequacy of our educational system at all levels, where one might reasonably expect such things to be clarified. But since we still bury our children in theology in their earlier years, and direct them into ignorance with Angel wings upon their backs, is it any wonder that this crisis is upon us? That falsification is manifestly not a central part of contemporary curriculums should give us all cause for concern.

Science makes the universe no less exciting, no less remarkable, and no less full of grace. Science is that one remarkable achievement of nature that distinguishes our species from all other living things on this planet. It is THE noble act of our species.

It was 1992 before the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged their mistake with Galileo. They punished him for advocating Copernican principles, and forced him to denounce them. I pray we live in more enlightened times.

Comments

[JK]

Your clarity on falsifiability is refreshing. Most people who advocate evolution don't seem to understand science. I wish I knew more of the predictive work in regards to evolution theory that you reference.

But you missed the mark on one important point: all joy, all love and all grace vanish in the analysis you advocate; they do NOT remain. You're quite wrong that the world is just as exciting and just as full of grace w/o God.

This isn't a proof, but as an outline of the problem i'll put forward the following: as it stands, the language of joy, and love, are inferred from a belief in a profound qualitative difference between men and animals; a difference primarily moral in nature, best related to what people today call "spirituality."

There is no foundation of morals w/o a conception of supernature. The argument that morals are simply add-ons to genetic developments that resulted from survival is another way of saying that morals are a way of fooling ourselves.

We like to wonder, we like to revere, but there is nothing to revere in survival, tool-making, and etc. Wonder in this analysis is even a bit of a mystery to me. No one builds shrines to tools or to survival, they revere something other than these things, and the thing they revere vanishes. Reverence itself vanishes. The most you can have is a certain discipline about hierarchy.

Similarly, we want to believe in justice and other moral principles; we feel very strongly about these things. But to say 'rape is a way of propogating your alleles, but the species as a whole does not benefit from it' is just a way of saying, 'rape is not wrong.' In fact, it doesn't matter if the species as a whole profits from rape, the species will as a tendency either move away from rape or else there will be death of the species due to the resultant hypertrophied competition. But 'death of a species due to consequences of action' is hardly anything really close to the idea of right and wrong. Is it wrong if a species dies because it is not well adapted? Wrong and right vanish.

There are scientists who understand this, and I believe that they either avoid certain logical consequences in order to maintain their decency or else they become deists of some sort, while labeling themselves agnostic or atheist. But a real atheism makes no sense; a 'purely scientific' analysis not only is rather impractical, even in the pursuit of science, it is antithetical to all the things we enjoy. You can claim that you believe it only by fooling yourself.

I choose to remain human, and I get to love science and I get to love God.

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Thank you JK for your opinion, but your assertion does not match my own experience. I find great personal joy and wonder in the world, love and grace (by which I mean something particular - see my introductory remarks at http://senses.info ).

It seems rather obvious to me to observe that the diverse notions of God have led to broad and bloody human conflict and that the scriptures have manifestly not taught the populations that adhere to them well. Science does not deny morality, it provides the basis for a morality founded upon the way things really are, a way that is open to personal verification, and does not rely upon an invention and fantasy that is open to exploitation by those that would ruthlessly misguide and manipulate others.

Prescribed morality has led to great and sustained injustice. This is surely seen in the treatment of women and in our property notions that sustain unmerited privilege and class.

My posting, in any case, did not exclude a larger mystery - one with which I am especially engaged as a scientist - it simply denied intelligent design.