Claiming that naturalism puts limits on origins science, (Oct. 14 Naturalism puts limits on origins science.) Roddy Bullock of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio wants to broaden the scope of science to include supernaturalism. He asserts the scientific method has been short-circuited by the philosophical requirement that only 'natural' causes can be considered.
Were his goal realized, not only could intelligent design be included in biology, other beliefs could also be taught. For example, that many diseases are caused by evil spirits. After all, religious thinking has led millions of people to believe that certain forms of schizophrenia, resulting from abnormal brain anatomy or chemistry, instead are caused by Satan possessing those individuals. With supernatural ideas then being part of science, a belief in exorcism could be shifted from a history or religion course to the biology classroom, where it can be taught as an alternative way of treating schizophrenia.
Bullock asserts, Intelligent design theorists seek to show that design can be empirically detected. Apparently they are still seeking, as no one has yet empirically detected any evidence for it. All of the arguments of Michael Behe, William Dembski and the other ID writers have been effectively debunked by scientists. Their claims about the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting mechanism and so forth have been shown by scientists to be false. The IDers' argument of the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap
an attempt at supporting their opinions by analogy, was easily demolished.
Bullock complains that scientists simply reject any efforts to confirm true design. No, we don't. By all means, please offer a basis for elevating ID to the level of science. Provide a hypothesis to test for the action of a supernatural designer. Make predictions that can be tested and offer methods for doing so. Until these minimal criteria are met, ID cannot be called a theory - not even a hypothesis. Hypotheses and theories tie things together. They explain and predict. ID does none of these things.
It's no use trying to change the rules of science. Science must always explain the unknown in terms of the known. In contrast, ID explains the unknown in terms of the even more unknown, a fallacy of informal logic called ignotum per ignotius. In claiming a role for a supernatural intellect, IDers are using something far less known - perhaps unknowable - than the biological phenomena they seek to explain.
Before the existence of scientific methodology, ancient peoples invented spiritual explanations (unknowns) to account for various phenomena. Volcanic eruptions were caused by gods dwelling within them, diseases were caused by spirits invading the body and so forth. We now have evidence (knowns) from geology that provides our present understanding of volcanoes and evidence from microbiology showing that bacteria and viruses (knowns) better explain communicable diseases than mysterious spirits.
Likewise, masses of evidence (knowns) from numerous scientific fields - geology, paleontology, morphology, genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, and systematics - better support an understanding of how the millions of species on this planet arose, than do any of the numerous creation myths of diverse ancient cultures, including the particular one promoted by Bullock.
I hope that I have addressed the chief complaint put forth by Bullock - that science is one-sided in allowing only natural causes. The point is that natural processes are the only kind of which we can have direct knowledge. It is this practical reason - not an atheistic bias - that forces scientists to exclude supernatural hypotheses.
- Jerome Rovner is a Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences. Send him an e-mail at rovner@ohiou.edu. 17
Archives
Letter to the Editor
