Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
Intelligent Design: the last rites.
« on: 2006-07-20 15:05:11 » |
 |
[Blunderov]I had not heard of methodological naturalism before.
The judgement was satisfactorily caustic IMO; "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy... "
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=1000
Intelligent Design is Not Science: Official
Ophelia Benson
Is Intelligent Design theory science (as its proponents claim in some contexts but not others) or religion (as its proponents ardently affirm in some contexts but deny in others, and as its opponents always claim)? This is the inherently philosophical question which the recent Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District court case in the US turned on. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the testimony of two philosophers of science as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs proved central to the judge's decision that Intelligent Design is religion and not science.
The decision was lengthy and thorough in the hope, as the judge dryly remarked, of preventing any more pointless, expensive trials over issues that ought to be settled. The testimony of the philosophers may help to explain why the issues can be considered settled.
The row had its origins in a resolution passed by the Dover Area School Board of Directors in October 2004, which decreed that “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.” The following month, the school district issued a press release announcing that, from January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People , is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
On December 14, several parents of Dover students filed a suit challenging the constitutional validity of the resolution and press release, on the grounds that the statement and the policy violated the establishment clause of the US Constitution. The defendants argued that the statement did not violate the establishment clause because Intelligent Design is not religion but science; the plaintiffs argued that Intelligent Design is not science but religion. Thus the question of what is science and what is religion was placed at the centre of the trial.
Judge John Jones noted in his decision that the theologian John Haught, who testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, pointed out that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but an old religious argument for the existence of God. Indeed, as Judge Jones explained, “He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Dr Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer ‘everyone understands to be God'.”
Jones went on to note that two expert witnesses for the defence, ID theorists Michael Behe and Scott A Minnich, admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Reverend Paley made in the 19th century for design.
This was perhaps a crucial concession, for defenders of Intelligent Design tend to stress its scientific credentials, claiming it is fundamentally different from traditional theological and philosophical arguments for a creator God. Allowing that arguments in ID aren't really different from those in creationism therefore undermines its claim to be scientific.
The philosopher Robert Pennock, the author of Tower of Babel: the Evidence against the New Creationism, has specialised in studying creationism and the Intelligent Design Movement and the transition from the first to the second; as he put it in his testimony, he watched “as the transition and language occurred from creation science to abrupt appearance to intelligent design.” Pennock was an expert witness for the plaintiffs and explained why he thought Intelligent Design is not science.
“As scientists go about their business, they follow a method,” he told the court. “Science is probably most characterised by its way of coming to conclusions. It's not so much the set of specific conclusions that it comes to, but the way in which it reaches them. In philosophy we talk about this as epistemology, it's a way of knowing, and science has limits upon itself. It follows a particular method. It has constraints. It requires that we have testable explanations. It gives natural explanations about the natural world. Intelligent design, creationism specifically, wants to reject that. And so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science.”
The plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild asked Pennock if there is a term of art for this rule that science has to look for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and Pennock answered, “Scientists themselves may not use the term. This is something that philosophers of science use, but the term is methodological naturalism, and the idea is that this is a form of method that constrains what counts as a scientific explanation.”
Rothschild asked how science adopted methodological naturalism, and Pennock replied that “[W]hen one does science, one is setting aside questions about whether the gods or some supernatural beings had some hand in this.” He gave as an example the scientific study of lightning. “Benjamin Franklin of course, who investigated lightning under this assumption of methodological naturalism and said you can have a natural explanation of lightning, it's electricity. And that's an example of this shift, a shift as saying we're not going to say what God may or may not be doing with sending lighting bolts.”
Pennock maintained not only that methodological naturalism was accepted in the scientific community, but also that it was a methodological rule which was important for science. “If one were to start appealing to the supernatural,” he explained, “one would immediately get the reaction from one's colleagues this is no longer part of what it is to be a scientist. So part of it is just essential to the notion. Philosophically it's important in the sense that it's relevant to the justification of conclusions, of scientific conclusions.
“What one expects in science is that one is going to be testing hypotheses against the natural world, and what methodological naturalism does is say we can't cheat. We can't just call for quick assistance to some supernatural power. It would certainly make science very easy if we could do that. We're forced to restrain ourselves to looking for natural regularities. That's part of what it means to be able to give evidence for something. You've undermined that notion of empirical evidence if you start to introduce the supernatural.”
Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse , is the other philosopher who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs. Forrest has done extensive research on the origins and goals of the ID movement, and she also testified that she considers ID to be “religious in nature” and a form of creationism, a view she partly based “on the statements by the movement's own leaders, they have at times referred to it that way…[and] Their rejection of evolution in favour of a supernatural intervention in the process of nature and in favour of special creation of life forms.”
The defence attorney put it to Forrest that methodological naturalism was just a convention imposed upon scientific inquiry, something she rejected. “Methodological naturalism is a methodology. It's a way of addressing scientific questions. It reflects the practice of science that has been successfully established over a period of centuries. It's not imposed upon science. It reflects the successful practice of science.”
The attorney tried to build on Forrest's acceptance that it “places limits on scientific exploration”, asking, “Should scientists be allowed to follow the evidence where it leads or should they be constrained to follow the evidence only where materialism allows?”
“Science by its nature and on the basis of its successful practice cannot address questions of the supernatural,” she replied, “and that's because the cognitive faculties that humans have will not take us beyond the reach of those faculties. And so science is really an intellectually quite humble process. It does not address supernatural claims. It has no methodology by which to do that.”
The defence attorney attempted to use the fact that methodological naturalism was disputed in philosophy as a means to cast doubt on its centrality in science, but although Forrest agreed that “there may be some dispute among philosophers of science,” she maintained that “that's not a question in dispute among the people who do the science, the scientists themselves. That is the way they do science. It reflects the established, the successful practice of science by the scientists themselves.”
The issue of methodological naturalism is one of many aspects of the “science or religion” question addressed during a trial that lasted nearly six weeks. In the end Judge Jones ruled, in a strongly-worded decision, that Intelligent Design is religion and thus cannot be taught in public school science classes.
“In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science,” he wrote. “We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents... The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy... The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”
It was a decisive statement, which philosophical reasoning and research helped make possible.
|
Author
Logged
