The end of the story on Intelligent Design

Dec 16, 2005 10:54

Unless you redefine science, as Kansas did, there is nothing to debate.


It is often useful to provide working definitions of essential terms when stating your position or theory on a given subject.
However, this is not 'useful' when you adopt an ad hoc working definition that, in itself, would be a point of contention. This occassionally occurs when a small, local minority attempts to put forth an agenda that goes against what, in this case, is an overwhelming and cross-cultural majority.

Example:
(Source)

The Old Definition
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

The New Definition
"A systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Unless you read carefully you might miss it. I believe the Kansas board may be guilty of imitative fallacy because they think if they create a definition that is too complex to understand that it would then be considered 'intelligently designed'. They both use the word "natural". However, the "New" definition uses it to modify "phenomena" as opposed to "explanations" in the "Old" definition.

Here they get into trouble as they failed to redefine the word "natural".
According to the Oxford American Dictionary (widget):
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

[sidenote: Yes, there are other dictionaries, and I did look elsewhere, but I felt this definition was clearest and most precise. I'd be curious to read the O.E.D. definition if anyone has access to such a thing]

[sidenote: Not to overly complicate the issue, but I believe there are some serious issues with parallelism in the "New" definition's compound direct object. The solution to the disjunction isn't readily apparent to your humble narrator. Any grammarians out there want to take a shot at it? Beyond the grammar issues there seems to be an conceptual randomness to the list. Does the "systematic method" have an apparent system? ie Does observation come first, hypothesis testing second, measurement third, etc ?]

[sidenote: There is also a built in value judgement in the "New" definition with the phrase "more adequate explanations". Meaning, I'm to take it, that the "Old" definition leads to in"adaquate" explanations. In what way does this definition increase science's adequacy.]

This definition proves somewhat problematic to me, as I think, reality, itself, is socially constructed or "caused by humankind". Therefore nothing learned through sensation and perception would be natural, which is, crudely speaking, a whole bunch of stuff. What can I say? When I digress I really digress.

More to the point, I can understand that in a more general sense (or would it be more precise?) the word "natural" in the "Old" definition helps demarcate the conceptual boundaries of science. This is done for two reasons: (1) to set apart science from other conceptual frameworks (2) to give science a manageable scope.

However, in the "New" definition this essential boundary stone is rolled away and summarily pushed off a cliff. By this we are to understand that science should have vague limits with a nearly limitless scope (as if "natural explanations" weren't a large enough field to play in), and that the conceptual boundaries of other frameworks should overlap with that of science.

While the "Old" definition appears to be precise and clear, the "New" definition is muddled and only raises more questions as to what science actually is, which is contrary to the purpose of "defining" a word (Don't worry. I'm not going to post a definition of the word "define". You can just look it up at your leisure.)

The "New" definition is ill conceived, awkwardly written, and, ultimately, useless as a denotative statement, QED.

Intelligent Design theory is not a scientific theory. It does not give a "natural explanation". Rather, it attempts to impose a supernatural explanation within a thought system that does not grant validity to anything beyond "natural explanation". Hence, it cannot be used to criticize the scientifically validity of a scientific theory that gives a "natural explanation".

[sidenote: Even the criteria stated in the "New" definition are not applicable to Intelligent Design. ie It isn't measurable, testable, observable, etc.]

[sidenote: Is the criteria "too complex to understand" even observable. If so, then whose observations decide what is too complex?]

The argument against Creation Science is a little more complex than the argument against Intelligent Design, but they share many of the same pitfalls in this ongoing and increasingly belabored (read: pointless) debate.

If two people arguing speak different languages, then the only thing that each side might be able to communicate, through body language or tone of voice, is that they disagree with the other.

And now, dear readers, your humble narrator must go about the rest of his day.
Stay out of the cold.
Previous post Next post
Up