Reader comments
Science needs the 'what ifs'

Science is all about asking useful questions. Then, those asking the questions do science to figure out the answers. Intelligent design asks questions, and then says "science can't figure this out, so it must be God (or "an intelligent designer")." Unfortunately, as science advances, so many of those "unanswerable" questions become answered. So intelligent design proponents must find something else that is currently unexplained. They aren't actually doing science...they're just looking for proof of God.
To base your faith in God on gaps in our scientific knowledge is to base your faith on something that will slowly disappear. Much better to base your faith on spiritual matters.
Intelligent Design is not good science and it is not good religion. It's the new anti-evolution, prepackaged with lots of lights and special effects, but ultimately empty.

What nonsense. The PR machine of ID is in full swing. I teach biology, and people can "what if" all they want; but if you are dealing in science, then measured data is your stock in trade. The Intelligent Design proponents want nothing less than to inject Christian concepts into science, which by its very nature is nonreligious (not anti-religious). Google "wedge strategy" together with "intelligent design". It shouldn't matter, but perhaps it does, that I am a Christian who wants to keep science the neutral observer of natural phenomena that it has been up till now. It has served Western Civilization well in that form.

Timj,

Throwing around insults and misrepresenting ID might be fun, so I don't entirely hold it against you, but getting into the nitty-gritty is a lot more productive.

Would you like to try it? If so, it would be a "rare treat" indeed, as most in the anti-ID crowd simply leave it at the insults and refuse to address the actual substance (claiming they don't want to "dignify" it with a response or claiming that the other person is too stupid to carry on a worthwhile discussion).

Kind of funny, huh? Insult something then refuse to discuss it in detail. (Is that part of the scientific method?)

The exception is Ken Miller, but as you have the chance to learn in a different thread, Ken Miller does not understand ID. So I give him credit for his efforts, ignorant as they are.

So are you willing to discuss it, or no?

Pisa,

I think the wedge strategy was a good one. Of course it was not science. But, then again, it didn't claim to be.

The fact that wedge wanted to use intelligent design to promote religion does not, of course, make intelligent design religious any more than Richard Dawkins' strategy to use science to promote atheism makes science atheistic.

Please feel free to what if all you want. Come up with other theories, but use science to support your theory. If your hypothesis is that god did it or it is too complex to understand then scientists are not going to take it seriously. And we shouldnt.

Science is always asking "what if", that is the process with how a theory becomes scientific law.
I.D. is afraid to ask "what if" because the answers to those questions generally steer them towards the answers science has provided.
You've got it all backwards.

Science is now making the classical religions have made through the years. Assuming they make no mistakes and being closed to new truth from outsiders. Unless they change their ways they will go down the same blind alleys that has plagued religion.

Catholics and LDS leaders have both had to back track on claims that once made on what was truth, showing that even they are not immune of needing to be open, Evengelicals claim in spite of inrefuteable evidence to the contrary that the universe is about 12,000 years old and that all who do not believe as they do will go to hell and suffer great pain forever and ever. This from a God that is all powerful and loving.

Unless science wants to go down similar dark and blind alleys, they need to continue to be open to new ideas and self criticism.

Ryan,
You've made claims about Ken Miller not understanding ID. As far as I can tell, you've never exactly detailed those claims.
So please elaborate.
By the way, can you tell us what your background in science is? How much do you know about evolution, and through what sources have you learned it?
Can you also tell us what ID has brought to the scientific community, and how it has improved our understanding of the natural world?
Could you also please tell us why the Templeton foundation, which is dedicated to linking religion and science, pulled their significant financial support from ID. It didn't have anything to do with lack of research, did it?
Lots of questions, I know. I won't be able to check back here until lunch time.

Ryan: There IS no substance to discuss. If you would like to bring up some substance I will be happy to discuss it, as would all scientists.

ID alows "what if's" as long as the final answer is always "God did it".

Can we know some objects were designed, even if we know nothing about how they were produced?

Clearly the answer is yes. That's all ID is about.

Moreover, any criterion which distinguishes design from non-design will also show that biological structures were designed. It's not a religious claim, but a falsifiable logico-deductive one based on empirical evidence and statistics.

The metaphysics of "science" (note the scare quotes) force an answer of "no" to the initial question whenever, in the opinion of the "scientist," a designer which is not a terrestrial being is implicated. The evidence is not considered, and a combination of "chance and necessity" is invoked to explain the phenomenon. That's the background to naturalistic evolution.

Thus, intelligence has been expelled from "scientific" discourse by prior commitments to a strictly naturalistic universe. Given the choice between design where "God" may be implicated (say, in the origination of biological life) and impossible explanations involving only randomness and natural law, "science" will take the latter and anything else will be smeared as "religion."

Read "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence," "Darwin's Black Box," and "The Edge of Evolution" for the real arguments.

"What if" the explanation of a phenomenon that is today inexplicably complex and appears to be "designed" merely requires several more years of careful research before it is understood as yet another example of how natural processes can produce extraordinary biological processes?

How is science advanced by ID saying that since we're not TODAY able to conceive of how the complex phenomenon is natural in origin, that it therefore must be attributed to a "designer" and hence it is no longer necessary to continue researching the phenomenon for its mechanisms of action?

After all, what's the point of attempting to scientifically understand a miracle?

ID isn't remotely a way of advancing knowledge. It's a roadblock to knowledge.

You're wrong. I know of no organization that is more self critical and open to new ideas than science. Nothing would please a young biologist more than to discredit some long held principle or truth. If you were to really look into the history of genetics, physics, evolution, biology or chemistry, you will see a long history of adjusting to new data. And one more thing for the record, I don't know ANY scientist that will ever say, this is 100% correct. They will only say, this has met a p value less than 5% and therefore fails to reject the null hypothesis.

ID is espoused by creationists who want to be taken seriously in the scientific community. It won't work.

To the letter writer: "what if?" is a great question to ask. The problem with ID is that that is the ONLY question one CAN ask! It is a theory entirely made up of "what if's?" There is no test, no experiment, nothing one can do to prove ID, short of the the designer him/herself appearing and proclaiming it to be true.

SO, it is not that ID has not YET been proven true, but may be in the future. By its very nature, it CANNOT be proven true. ID is "what if?" and nothing more.

As for Ryan, above, I echo another writer in saying that there is no substance to ID. Where is it? Where are the nuances? This is ID: the universe is so complex that God must have created it. Done. That's the theory, and that's the end. Now that's what I call science! Save it for church, where it belongs...

Ryan, you want a discussion of the "nitty gritty" of evolution? You can find out about the issue in depth, with evidence provided. Enter any biology class at any college and you will get your fill.
The "anti-id crowd" as you call them include well educated people that study the actual evidence. These people are called scientist, they are called biologists and they are not anti-id any more then they are anti-flat earth, or anti-young earth. They are pro rationality and pro evidence.
And science, of course, will accept evidence that is presented by id proponents. But the burden is on those proponents to gather and present evidence. It seems that they have failed to do this. It seems that they have no evidence to back up their claims.
You want a discussion of "actual substance", then by all means have it. Go for it. But your post seemed to utterly lack the substantive discussion you claim to want.
That most nonsensical of a movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" generating this current tantrum by id proponents is full of mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, spin, and outright lies, but, also, like your post, no substance.

Anon: You said "Can we know some objects were designed, even if we know nothing about how they were produced?" Name one.
If there is an intelligent designer then he/she/it did not do a very good job and perhaps should look for a different line of work.

You REALLY consider the movie Expelled to be a "Documentary"?

Documentaries are what you get from PBS, National Geographic, etc... Not Hollywood.

That said... The "What if" is important in advancing Science, but what makes Science "Science" is the PROOF of your theory, and not leaving the investigation/proof of your thesis at "What if...".

I don't speak for Anon but when I read your question dozens of examples came to mind so I thought I'd reply.

Example:
I don't know how Television works (in technical detail) but I can observe it, know that it works, but that doesn't mean I know how it was designed nor created nor even how it works.

Just because I don't understand something as simple as a man-made object like a TV Camera, TV broadcast and TV set work, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or wasn't designed or created.

From my observations I believe that the TV was designed... Even though I don't know how it was created.

Maybe I missed the point of your question but the answer seems so obvious to me.

Why do you suppose it is that some "religious" people think that if they delve into the world of science or contemplate scientific explanations for things they are somehow going to lose their souls?

Ryan thinks the wedge strategy is a good one. In case the observers are unfamiliar with it, the wedge strategy is the brainchild of The Discovery Institute, which is the leading proponent of Intelligent Design. In their document, they explicitly say they want to change science in the following way;
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Now, that may be a perfectly proper lesson for Sunday School, but it clearly is not science. Science works for every religion and for the non-religious alike, because it tries to decipher how the universe functions. It is silent about God, not because it denies God, but because it can't observe God. People like Ryan are exercised about evolutionary theory because they think it is inherently anti-God, which is ludicrous given the Pope's and other religious leaders' stance on evolution.
ID will fail in the scientific community on its lack of merit. But it will succeed in some circles that are distressed by evolutionary theory. This is just the latest go around of a resistance that started with the publication of the Origin of Species, 150 years ago.