English 1A

03 November 2005

Word Count: 2050

Essay # 3: Intelligent Design and the Definition of Science

            What is Intelligent Design? By one definition, Intelligent Design is the assertion, put forward by critics of Darwin's theory of evolution, that states that the existence of certain biological structures cannot be explained by natural laws and processes. By another definition, it is a movement by conservative Christian organizations like the Discovery Institute to cast creationism as a scientific theory. Its proponents call it a theory or even a scientific revolution, while its opponents deride it as pseudoscience or worse. Simple labels don't really get at the heart of the controversy, however. The important question to answer is whether or not Intelligent Design objectively fits the definition of science.

            As it turns out, such a question is exceedingly difficult to answer because science is so hard to define. History has produced a myriad of plausible definitions for science, some of them contradictory, and the conflict between these definitions is so prevalent that philosophers have given it its own term: the demarcation problem. The best one can do without subscribing to a single philosophy in this case is to compare Intelligent Design to these various definitions and models. In so doing, it is hoped that common threads or patterns will emerge to indicate a philosophical consensus on the classification of Intelligent Design as science or nonscience, or at least conglomerate into a preponderance of evidence pointing one way or the other. For various reasons, most of them stemming from the fact that Intelligent Design posits the existence of a supernatural designer, or God, Intelligent Design does not fulfill any but the broadest criteria for the demarcation of science.

            To answer the question of Intelligent Design's classification, it is important to examine not just the demarcation problem but also the characteristics of Intelligent Design itself. Most of the secular arguments for Intelligent Design revolve around the idea that the makeups of certain biological systems, such as the eye, are so complex and interdependent that they cannot be explained by evolution. Other oft-cited examples of "irreducible complexity" include the cascade of blood clotting proteins in human blood and the bacterial flagellum of E. coli. Proponents say that these systems are "irreducibly complex" because the removal of any single component causes the failure of the entire system, and thus, they argue, such systems could not have arisen through the gradual process of natural selection. Furthermore, the idea of Intelligent Design goes, such complex systems cannot be explained by any other natural process and are evidence of some intelligent, supernatural agent. The first point is certainly arguable within the framework of science by most definitions, and in fact is often eagerly engaged and repudiated by scientists like Russel F. Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, who argues that the blood clotting system is understandable within the context of natural selection by analysis of genetic processes (Doolittle). It is at the second point, invoking a supernatural designer, where Intelligent Design's conformity to most definitions of science breaks down.

            Classically, statewide teaching standards have restricted science to offering only natural explanations for observed phenomena. In Kansas, for example, the educational standard for science includes the phrase, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural [emphasis added] explanations for what we observe in the world around us" (qtd. in Wallis 28). In September, however, due to the lobbying of Intelligent Design advocates, the Kansas Board of Education is likely to vote to remove this phrase in favor of one which does not preclude the supernatural. Similar efforts to redefine the science curriculum in such a way as to include Intelligent Design are being undertaken in many of the United States, including Georgia and Pennsylvania, a development which draws criticism from mainstream scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2002, the AAAS passed a resolution urging citizens and policymakers to oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum ("AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory."). All of this activity is indicative of fact that Intelligent Design does not fit contemporary legal definitions of science. It is easy to be skeptical of the claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory when the teaching of it as such requires broadening the legal definition of science.

            Educational curricula are not the only government-sanctioned criteria for differentiating science from nonscience. In 1993, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. In its opinion, the court created the Daubert standard, a set of considerations by which courts can assess the scientific validity of testimony:

Many considerations will bear on the inquiry, including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)

Although Intelligent Design in the context of this essay is not technically “testimony," it may still be useful to compare it with these criteria. Intelligent Design fails on the first and third criteria because the existence of a supernatural designer, with no falsifiable conditions, simply cannot be tested or measured. In other words, the designer's existence is asserted so vaguely that the claim can neither be reinforced nor refuted by experimentation. Intelligent Design fails, too, on the rest of the criteria; articles in support of it are conspicuously absent from peer-reviewed journals and the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects its claims. As Alan I. Leshner, executive publisher of the journal Science, wrote in a column in the Times-Tribute, "Despite their professed devotion to science, ID advocates have published nothing in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Their allies in the sciences are few, and mostly fringe players" (Leshner).

            The archetypal solution to the problem of demarcation is to ask whether a given theory follows the Scientific Method. That is to say, for a theory to be scientific, it must adhere to the following guidelines: it must be based in observation; those observations should form the basis for a hypothesis, and the hypothesis should be parsimonious; the hypothesis should make predictions, and those predictions must be empirically testable and falsifiable; finally, experiments must repeatably confirm the predictions. Examining each of these steps in turn, it becomes abundantly clear that Intelligent Design does not meet the criterion for this method of demarcation. While the portion of Intelligent Design which criticizes the gaps in Darwin's theory may or may not be based in observation, the leap to a supernatural hypothesis does not logically follow. Such a hypothesis also violates the principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor, because it adds an unnecessary entity, the designer, to a previous theory without increasing its predictive power. In fact, it actually decreases the predictive power of the theory of evolution by adding an unknown and unknowable factor into the mix. Without this predictive power, there is nothing to test by empirical experimentation, nor is there anything which can be falsified. The entire process breaks down so completely that by the time we reach the last step, repeating the experiments, the idea isn't even applicable to the situation at hand. It is like asking a person to put the car into park after they've driven it into a lake.

            Another possibility presents itself for determining the classification of Intelligent Design in the work of philosophers. Karl Popper was one of the most influential minds in the philosophy of science. In his model of scientific progress, scientists march progressively closer towards truth through the falsification of old theories and the adoption of new ones. The key to scientific advancement in Popper's model is the requirement that theories must admit the possibility of being proven false, and consequently they must be rooted in empiricism. To use a classic, and relevant, example, the theory of evolution is falsifiable because it could be proven false by the observation of unreconcilable differences between it and the natural world. As Darwin himself conceded, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (qtd. in Than). Intelligent Design does not exhibit falsifiability, necessary for scientific progress in this model, because the introduction of the supernatural designer potentially can explain any and all observed phenomena.

            The philosopher Thomas Kuhn disagreed with Popper's linear model and developed an alternative model by which we might solve the demarcation problem. Kuhn posited that dominant scientific theories and assumptions, or paradigms, go through periods of "normal" science, in which minor improvements are made to existing theories, and "revolutionary" science, in which a significant amount of anomalies cause a crisis in the existing theories, necessitating the development of an entirely new theory and eventually leading to a paradigm shift from the old theories to the new. In order to fit this model, Intelligent Design proponents might claim that evolution is currently undergoing such a crisis, pointing to "anomalies" such as "irreducible complexity," and label themselves as "revolutionary" scientists. This type of characterization would not be entirely accurate, however. In this model, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he was doing "revolutionary" science. At that time, his theory contained a very large number of "anomalies," such as its failure to account for a method of inheritance. As the study of evolution settled into "normal" science, further discoveries, such as genetics and DNA, filled many of these gaps. Observation and testing have predominantly served to reduce the number of "anomalies" in the theory of evolution over time, in contradiction to the claims of Intelligent Design's supporters. In other words, evolution is further from crisis in the mainstream scientific community now than it has ever been. The Discovery Institute attempted to prove otherwise with a petition entitled A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, which over four years garnered 400 signatures. An unfunded rebuttal petition entitled A Scientific Support For Darwinism, in stark contrast, garnered roughly 8,000 signatures in its first four days, effectively shattering the Intelligent Design movement's claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis." Because Intelligent Design neither replaces a "theory in crisis," nor offers any improvement to an existing theory, one can conclude that it does not fit Kuhn's model.

            Finally, the philosopher Paul Feyerabend criticized both Popper's and Kuhn's models as being too restrictive. In his book Against Method, he argued that there are no methodological rules which can be applied to all of science without impeding scientific progress. The consequence of this claim is that philosophy cannot possibly solve the demarcation problem. In this model, not only is Intelligent Design a scientific theory, but so too are astrology and flat-earth cosmology. This is consistent with the recent testimony of Michael Behe, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and proponent of Intelligent Design. During a trial concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania, Behe conceded that a definition of scientific theory broad enough to include Intelligent Design would also include astrology (Biever).

            With the exception of the Feyerabend model, all of these definitions appear to exclude Intelligent Design from the category of intellectual pursuit called science. While no criteria are contained within all of these demarcations, we can identify common threads between the individual ones. The Daubert standard, the Scientific Method, and Popper's model all demand falsifiability and empirical testing. The Daubert standard also demands, in common with Kuhn's model, peer review and acceptance among the scientific community. Intelligent Design fails to measure up to any of these criteria, as has been shown above. Having determined that Intelligent Design is firmly in the realm of nonscience, one can examine what significance this conclusion might have in our world and our lives. The most pressing and immediate effect should be the exclusion of Intelligent Design from classrooms of science. No school board or legislature could legitimately require educators to teach pseudoscience as part of the official curriculum; to do so would undermine not only scientific education but the prestige of science itself. Scientific progress relies on the fostering of future scientists' critical thinking skills in the classroom as heavily as it relies on the Scientific Method itself, and Intelligent Design offers a grave disservice to both.

Works Cited

"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory." AAAS. 18 October 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science. 01 November 2005 <http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml>

Alter, Jonathan. "Monkey See, Monkey Do." Newsweek. New York: 15 August 2005. Vol. 146, Iss. 7; pg. 27, 1 pgs

Biever, Celeste. "Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told." NewScientist. 19 October 2005. 01 November 2005 <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178>

Brandon, R. Joe. "Results of The Four Day Petition." Shovelbums. 19 October 2005. Shovel Bums LLC. 01 Nov. 2005 <http://shovelbums.org/component/option,com_mospetition/Itemid,506/>

Clemmitt, M. "Intelligent design." The CQ Researcher Online. 29 July 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2005072900>

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. No. 92-102. Supreme Ct. of the US. 28 June 1993.

"Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 00:43, 15 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_v._Merrell_Dow_Pharmaceuticals>

"Demarcation problem." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 11:19, 8 August 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem>

Doolittle, Russel F. "A Delicate Balance." Boston Review. February/March 1997. 01 November 2005 <http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/doolittle.html>.

"Intelligent design." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 19:31, 19 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>

Krauthammer, Charles. "Let's Have No More Monkey Trials." Time. New York: 8 August 2005. Vol. 166, Iss. 6; pg. 78, 1 pgs

Leshner, Alan I. . "If evidence rules in court; only one way case can go." The Times-Tribune. 13 October 2005. 01 Nov 2005 <http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15381673&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=8>

"Pseudoscience." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 22:07, 18 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience>

"Science." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17:44, 18 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science>

"Scientific method." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 18:41, 16 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>

Than, Ker. "Intelligent Design: 'The Death of Science'." LiveScience. 23 September 2005. 01 November 2005 <http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html>

"Theories and sociology of the history of science." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 23:22, 4 September 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_and_sociology_of_the_history_of_science>

"Theory." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 10:31, 12 October 2005. 19 October 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>

Wallis, Claudia. "THE EVOLUTION WARS." Time. New York: 15 Aug 2005. Vol. 166, Iss. 7; pg. 27, 7 pgs

Yglesias, Matthew. "Kuhn and Intelligent Design." Online posting. 26 August 2005. TPM Cafe. 01 November 2005 <http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/26/112542/021>