I was watching television the other day, and came across a discussion between an advocate for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID) and an advocate of the teaching of “scientific evolution” in schools. Since George Bush added his voice to those in support of teaching ID, the issue seems to have become more serious.
I am no expert, but as I understand the issue, the ID advocates accept the ideas of genes and inheritance of genetic makeup, as well as the idea that new species come into existence based on genetic mutations of existing species. They also accept that many species that once existed but became extinct, and that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. They do not believe the biblical creation story is literally true. They differ from scientific evolutionists in that they believe that this process was guided by the intelligence of some divine creator.
I don’t think their view is that this intelligence is working as does the design of a chemist. That is, a chemist mixes chemicals, usually relatively pure, and controls the conditions so that a specific reaction occurs. Billions upon billions of interactions occur randomly within the beaker holding the mixture, and eventually a relatively pure new compound is to be found in the container. But the chemist has no specific control of the interaction of individual atoms. I suspect that the advocates of ID see omniscient and omnipotent intelligence in action at the molecular level.
I think that the reason that ID is not (now) science, is that it has not been put in the form of a scientific hypothesis and tested. No one has convincingly put forth a statement of the form: “if ID is true then the following should be observed in nature, but if it is false, this alternative observation should occur.” I suppose the prototypical such statement was that made by Einstein about the bending of light from distant stars as the light passed by the sun on its way to earth.
I for one would be happy to see ID taught in schools, in science classes, in order to explain to students why it is not scientific. Scientists, like the rest of us, believe things to be true that are not supported by scientific theory and scientific evidence (repeated observations made under controlled conditions), but they understand the difference between science and faith.
The real objective of this posting, however, is to note how unfortunate it is that the proponents of ID don’t seem to understand the powerful trend in intellectual thought that has emerged over recent centuries, explaining how order can emerge from processes without intelligent design. The theory of evolution is a prototype of this kind of thinking. It postulates that the mixing of genes and mutations create a continuing diversity among members of a species, and that the natural selection of the members of the species to reproduce successfully under environmental conditions favors change in the composition of populations, and eventually the emergence of new species. Initially confirmed on the basis of observation of fossil evidence, it has been confirmed by evidence from many sciences, and eventually by laboratory experiments in which population variations have been observed.
The first prototype of this kind of explanation was I suppose that of Adam Smith and his explanation of the hidden hand of the market as an explanation of the way that prices change to reflect changes in supply and demand for goods and services. The explanation did away with the need to postulate the intervention of an outside intelligence to explain how prices change. I have read that Darwin had studied Smith’s theories and been affected by them in his thinking about evolution.
I suppose too, the ideas from geology were important. Certainly, Darwin was inclined towards “gradualism” by his knowledge of the geological evidence of the age of the earth. But geologists too had develop theories of the evolution of the surface of the earth due to natural processes such as volcanic action, the uplifting of the crust due to internal forces, and erosion by wind and water. These theories did not depend on intelligent guidance of those forces, and allowed for the appearance to be an unplanned emergence from the natural forces at work.
Statistics, if you think about it, have also evolved to explain the appearance of order from random events under certain kinds of conditions. The “law of large numbers” explains why there is an apparent order in the averages of samples taken from a random distribution. Regression analysis, taken from an understanding of the evolution of human populations, explains a similar aspect of the order appearing out of random variations.
Indeed, the political system of the United States developed out of a rejection of the idea that kings were divinely appointed, and defined democratic processes for the selection of leaders. Those processes allowed the creation of political order out of the hundreds of millions of individual opinions of citizens.
I think of Ev Rogers theories of innovation as reflecting how communities can select technological innovations without any individual responsible for the ID of the technological bundle used by the members, but rather by the process of individual decisions based on local observations. (Economists from the evolutionary economics school expand this view to explain how the hidden hand of the market explains the choice of technology made by a society as a whole, beyond the planning of any individual intelligence.)
Indeed, one of the major trends in Organization Theory has been to explain how apparent order is obtained by the individual decisions made by relatively irrational members or groups of members of the organization through organizational processes of selection and reinforcement. This theory has been in direct opposition to earlier theories that the behavior of the organization was explained by the intelligent design of its nominal leaders, and modern organizational theorists see planning and unplanned behavior as jointly determining the behavior of the organization as a whole.
I could go on with examples, but the point is made. Indeed, complexity theory, as practiced by the Santa Fe Institute and in other places, is based on studies of how order can emerge by local decisions made with local individuals, under selective and feedback processes, from random complexity.
This is a beautiful body of knowledge and understanding, and one that apparently far too many people ignore.
I am no expert, but as I understand the issue, the ID advocates accept the ideas of genes and inheritance of genetic makeup, as well as the idea that new species come into existence based on genetic mutations of existing species. They also accept that many species that once existed but became extinct, and that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. They do not believe the biblical creation story is literally true. They differ from scientific evolutionists in that they believe that this process was guided by the intelligence of some divine creator.
I don’t think their view is that this intelligence is working as does the design of a chemist. That is, a chemist mixes chemicals, usually relatively pure, and controls the conditions so that a specific reaction occurs. Billions upon billions of interactions occur randomly within the beaker holding the mixture, and eventually a relatively pure new compound is to be found in the container. But the chemist has no specific control of the interaction of individual atoms. I suspect that the advocates of ID see omniscient and omnipotent intelligence in action at the molecular level.
I think that the reason that ID is not (now) science, is that it has not been put in the form of a scientific hypothesis and tested. No one has convincingly put forth a statement of the form: “if ID is true then the following should be observed in nature, but if it is false, this alternative observation should occur.” I suppose the prototypical such statement was that made by Einstein about the bending of light from distant stars as the light passed by the sun on its way to earth.
I for one would be happy to see ID taught in schools, in science classes, in order to explain to students why it is not scientific. Scientists, like the rest of us, believe things to be true that are not supported by scientific theory and scientific evidence (repeated observations made under controlled conditions), but they understand the difference between science and faith.
The real objective of this posting, however, is to note how unfortunate it is that the proponents of ID don’t seem to understand the powerful trend in intellectual thought that has emerged over recent centuries, explaining how order can emerge from processes without intelligent design. The theory of evolution is a prototype of this kind of thinking. It postulates that the mixing of genes and mutations create a continuing diversity among members of a species, and that the natural selection of the members of the species to reproduce successfully under environmental conditions favors change in the composition of populations, and eventually the emergence of new species. Initially confirmed on the basis of observation of fossil evidence, it has been confirmed by evidence from many sciences, and eventually by laboratory experiments in which population variations have been observed.
The first prototype of this kind of explanation was I suppose that of Adam Smith and his explanation of the hidden hand of the market as an explanation of the way that prices change to reflect changes in supply and demand for goods and services. The explanation did away with the need to postulate the intervention of an outside intelligence to explain how prices change. I have read that Darwin had studied Smith’s theories and been affected by them in his thinking about evolution.
I suppose too, the ideas from geology were important. Certainly, Darwin was inclined towards “gradualism” by his knowledge of the geological evidence of the age of the earth. But geologists too had develop theories of the evolution of the surface of the earth due to natural processes such as volcanic action, the uplifting of the crust due to internal forces, and erosion by wind and water. These theories did not depend on intelligent guidance of those forces, and allowed for the appearance to be an unplanned emergence from the natural forces at work.
Statistics, if you think about it, have also evolved to explain the appearance of order from random events under certain kinds of conditions. The “law of large numbers” explains why there is an apparent order in the averages of samples taken from a random distribution. Regression analysis, taken from an understanding of the evolution of human populations, explains a similar aspect of the order appearing out of random variations.
Indeed, the political system of the United States developed out of a rejection of the idea that kings were divinely appointed, and defined democratic processes for the selection of leaders. Those processes allowed the creation of political order out of the hundreds of millions of individual opinions of citizens.
I think of Ev Rogers theories of innovation as reflecting how communities can select technological innovations without any individual responsible for the ID of the technological bundle used by the members, but rather by the process of individual decisions based on local observations. (Economists from the evolutionary economics school expand this view to explain how the hidden hand of the market explains the choice of technology made by a society as a whole, beyond the planning of any individual intelligence.)
Indeed, one of the major trends in Organization Theory has been to explain how apparent order is obtained by the individual decisions made by relatively irrational members or groups of members of the organization through organizational processes of selection and reinforcement. This theory has been in direct opposition to earlier theories that the behavior of the organization was explained by the intelligent design of its nominal leaders, and modern organizational theorists see planning and unplanned behavior as jointly determining the behavior of the organization as a whole.
I could go on with examples, but the point is made. Indeed, complexity theory, as practiced by the Santa Fe Institute and in other places, is based on studies of how order can emerge by local decisions made with local individuals, under selective and feedback processes, from random complexity.
This is a beautiful body of knowledge and understanding, and one that apparently far too many people ignore.
1 comment:
Indeed, there is a big difference between CAN and DID. But the emergence of an understanding of how order MIGHT emerge from randomness by other than intelligent design seems to me a great achievements of modern thought.
I wonder about not only Darwinism, but systematic biology. I have no doubt that it is important to survey nature, and to categorize plants and animals. I have no doubt that scientifically trained systematic biologists are needed to do this, and bring to their work something beyond that brought by the local informants who so often provide their basic information on what lives where. But it seems to me that systematic biology is often inductive, drawing theoretical inferences from patterns in data, rather than deductive, testing hypotheses. I guess I just have to accept that induction is all right!
Is Darwinism scientific? I have no doubt that Darwin was a scientist, and that he was acting as a scientist when he proposed his theory of evolution. Nor do I have any doubt that scientists are acting in their classic role as they organize observations around that theory in order to convey information to students and the public. So I guess I believe Darwinism, in that narrow sense, is scientific.
I suppose not all people who claim to "Darwinism" do so legitimately. Indeed, I wonder if an "ism" can claim to scientific legitimacy.
And of course many aspects of the modern theories of genetics, natural selection, and evolution are incomplete, and some are probably wrong. But one of the nice things about science is that it allows people to be wrong while still acting correctly as scientists.
Indeed, as I understand it, it would be unscientific to claim that ID is wrong, in that scientists have not formulated testable hypotheses as to how intelligent design would work, and have not amassed objective evidence against those hypotheses. That is the entire basis for the claim that ID is not science.
Post a Comment