DESIGN AND SCIENCE
By Mike Gene
Written 7/14/2001; Revised 5/26/2003
Does science incorporate intelligent causation into its explanatory devices? Those who think so typically point to such things as archaeology and forensic science. But in these cases, science depends on some independent knowledge of the designer and their methods. Specifically, in all cases where science explores the effects of intelligent causation, the designers are.....us. Thus, we can say there is a working principle at work in science:
Without an independent knowledge base about the designers, science cannot consider intelligent causation as part of an explanatory scheme.
In fact, I have heard many critics of ID arguing exactly this. Some people, from both sides, point to SETI as a counter-example. Yet, it is the only example that can be used to make this point (if someone knows of another, please let me know). And that's the problem. Not everyone agrees that SETI is science, in fact, many think SETI is pseudoscience [
SETI: Science or Pseudoscience]. Since SETI is not universally acknowledged as science, it doesn't really qualify as a strong counter-example against my principle.Of course, there are several other qualifiers that I should add at this point.
a. If X is designed, is anything else designed?
b. Does some coherent pattern emerge when scoring things as designed?
c. Does this pattern suggest further insights into the workings and evolution of life?
Only once questions a-c have been sufficiently answered can we seriously turn to "who?" That is, we need to get a fairly solid grip on the extent of design before we can even begin to seriously speculate about designers.
Nevertheless, if science cannot seriously process ID because of the principle I cited, well then, we have a problem. Say we turn to the OOL and suppose life was designed by some form of intelligence. This truth does NOT entail that we should have an independent knowledge base of the designers. Thus, we can have a truth about the world whose consequence does not entail that science should be able to discover it. If intelligent causation is behind the OOL, science will provide another explanation regardless.
I personally think the "independent knowledge of the designers" criteria is more a matter of convenience than necessity. Nevertheless, I think it has become ingrained as a core assumption of modern science. This explains why the few scientists who have thought about ID as it relates to origins tell us we need "extraordinary evidence" to incorporate ID into science. The existence of 'extraordinary evidence' (whatever that is supposed to be) does not follow from the truth of ID, yet it is demanded if scientists are to abandon the approach that is most convenient.
Yet even after saying all this, I do not think this problem hinges on any "in principle" claim.
In the past, I have hit on some of the social and psychological factors that prevent ID from becoming part of science. Many respond with a knee-jerk reaction and think I am proposing some type of conspiracy theory. But in my opinion, my detractors really don't understand science.
Throughout these debates, there is a rather naïve view of science (not to mention no universally accepted definition of science). The view looks like this:
This view supposes that Science and Nature exist in a two-way relationship mediated by mind. Yet note that "Mind" is smaller than both "Science" and "Nature" indicating that while it is needed to facilitate the relationship, it is nevertheless subservient to the relationship. This view then leads many to argue that because Science does not incorporate ID, there is no evidence for ID.
But in reality, Science is a much more complex dynamic than shown in the above figure. Philosopher Paul Thagard illustrates this nicely with a survey of a most straightforward and relatively mundane scientific discovery, that of bacteria acting as the causal agent behind ulcers. (see "
A Case Study in Scientific Discovery" for links). Thagard concludes his analysis of this scientific discovery as follows:
In accord with figure [5], my account of the emergence in the past decade and a half of major new views about the causes of ulcers has described science as a complex system. The system is simultaneously: psychological (involving individual scientists' cognitive processes for discovery and acceptance), physical (requiring scientists to interact with the natural world using instruments and experiments), and social (involving the interaction of scientists with each other). Only by attending to all these aspects of the growth of knowledge can we fully explain scientific change.
And offers the following figure to illustrate this:
Thus, when I discuss metaphysical, psychological and/or social factors entailed in debates about design, I am in the mainstream of the philosophy of science. To ignore this and focus only on "the evidence" is to demonstrate a lack of appreciation for what science is all about. In the future, we can explore some of the metaphysical, psychological, and social obstacles to ID found in the scientific community. But for now, the point is this: if both psychological and social factors were involved in the discovery of the bacterial cause of ulcers, I maintain they would be far more likely to be involved when it comes to a hypothesis associated with sociopolitical concerns, religion, and a redefinition of science. As I noted in "
Clearly, the psychological and social factors in modern science work as strong discouraging dynamics for any ID hypothesis. In the future, we will explore both sets of factors to see why. However, unlike Marshall, it is not clear how Nature can come to the rescue. In Marshall's case, he was working with something that could be both observed and manipulated and the demonstration of his hypothesis would be rather straight forward - associate bacteria with ulcers: correlate, infect non-diseased organisms and cure diseased organisms. But with the OOL and ID, there is no intelligent designer to observe and manipulate and there are no original life forms to observe and manipulate. We instead must rely on great amounts of speculation and very indirect methods of testing. But could this ever be sufficient physical data to overcome the negative psychological and social factors behind ID's rejection?
When scientists face the question of a teleological origin of life, many view this as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. Yet what exactly is extraordinary evidence? Marshall's claims were perceived as being rather extraordinary (enough to label them crazy), yet its difficult to see in what way his accumulated evidence were "extraordinary." More problematic is that while a teleological origin of life may be considered an extraordinary event, there is no reason whatsoever to think extraordinary evidence would follow from this event. Put simply, the evidence for ID behind the OOL may be subtle. And if that is the case, can subtle, indirect evidence for X ever overcome the social and psychological dynamics that oppose X?
Figure 5 in Thagard's second paper is most illuminating. It helps us to visualize that scientific belief is an interplay of physical, social, and psychological factors. Normally, the input from Nature prevents this web of dynamics from becoming purely an interplay of psychological and social factors. Or better yet, it is normally the case the Nature eventually asserts itself as the referee and leading guide (if only because sooner or later, a person with the right psychology comes along to hear Nature). But if we are dealing with an extraordinary event X, and the data that exist because of X present themselves in a subtle and indirect fashion, might the referee's hands be tied? Might this be a situation where the social and psychological factors no longer exist in a give and take relationship with Nature, but instead exist as dominant factors that mold Nature to their ends?
In such as case, the dynamics involved in science may look more like this:
That is, as Nature's ability to contribute to the debate is diminished, scientific belief becomes more of an interplay between Mind (psychology/metaphysics) and Society. In such situations, it is easier to make Nature subservient to the demands of Mind and Society. And if the evidence for ID is too subtle, it cannot turn back the dominant influences of Mind and Society. Instead, those very influences will be effectively able to dictate to Nature and come up with an alternative non-teleological story.
What can be done? Just as SETI explorers scan the heavens regardless of whether others think their work is science, ID theorists can do likewise. In other words, just as we can make assumptions about the human-like nature of the designers, along with their communication technology, in order to search the skies for ETI, likewise when it comes to the OOL, we can make assumptions about the human-like nature of the designers, along with their biotechnology, in order to search the living world for traces of Mind.