Intelligent Design Is a Scientific Theory, So Long as God Isn’t Invoked
A recent news item in the Huffington Post caught my attention:
Scientists in the U.K. have examined a tiny metal circular object, and are suggesting it might be a micro-organism deliberately sent by extraterrestrials to create life on Earth.
…
The University of Buckingham reports that the minuscule metal globe was discovered by astrobiologist Milton Wainwright and a team of researchers who examined dust and minute matter gathered by a high-flying balloon in Earth’s stratosphere.
“It is a ball about the width of a human hair, which has filamentous life on the outside and a gooey biological material oozing from its centre,” Wainwright said, according toExpress.co.uk.
“One theory is it was sent to Earth by some unknown civilization in order to continue seeding the planet with life,” Wainwright hypothesizes.
That theory comes from a Nobel Prize winner.
“This seeming piece of science fiction — called ‘directed panspermia’ — would probably not be taken seriously by any scientist were it not for the fact that it was very seriously suggested by the Nobel Prize winner of DNA fame, Francis Crick,” said Wainwright.
Panspermia is a theory that suggests life spreads across the known physical universe, hitchhiking on comets or meteorites.
The idea of directed panspermia was suggested by Crick, a molecular biologist, who was the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA in 1953. Twenty years later, Crick co-wrote — with biochemist Leslie Orgel — a scientific paper about directed panspermia.
…
Even with this more recent discovery of a tiny globe found lodged into a high-flying balloon, the alien space seed proponents know they have a long way to go before that can be proven and accepted by the scientific community.
“Unless, of course, we can find details of the civilization that is supposed to have sent it in this respect, it is probably an unprovable theory,” Wainwright conceded.
Time — and space — will tell.
I have not spent any more time investigating this particular theory than what it took me to read the article and copy it here. My guess is that aliens were not involved with the miniscule metal globe.
However, the reason I’m posting this article on my Sunday religious post is what the article did NOT say: Namely, the very idea of suggesting that a biological object was designed by an intelligence is ipso facto unscientific. And yet, we hear that all the time in standard discussions of “Intelligent Design.”
This is a point that I would repeatedly make when hearing a biologist tell me ID was an unscientific theory. I would point out that it’s theoretically possible that aliens seeded life here on Earth billions of years ago, with an initial cell or cells that were truly “irreducibly complex” in the ID sense of that term. This wouldn’t prove that the Christian God created the aliens in 6 days; perhaps the aliens’ own cells evolved in the textbook neo-Darwinian way from inorganic molecules. But the point is, if scientists looked at the aliens’ cells and the ones on Earth, it’s possible that the terrestrial ones would be irreducibly complex whereas the aliens’ cells could have plausibly arisen through step-by-step mutations.
To repeat, I’m not saying that the above is plausible, and I’m not (for the purposes of this argument) taking a stand on whether terrestrial cells are irreducibly complex, in the ID sense. My point is a methodological one: Surely the question of whether my scenario is plausible or not is an empirical one. Biologists and other scientists would actually have to look at terrestrial cells under the microscope, and come up with various theories about how they could have arisen from the primordial soup on Earth billions of years ago. Surely it wouldn’t do to say, “It would lie outside the scope of science to wonder whether these organisms were deliberately designed. We have to proceed on the assumption that all organisms on Earth arose in a blind process, because otherwise we are doing the equivalent of explaining thunder by reference to angry gods.”
It is theoretically possible that life was seeded on Earth by intelligent beings (or a single Being) who did not come from Earth. Surely scientists have a lot to say on this question. To rule out this hypothesis from the get-go would itself be incredibly unscientific and a violation of empiricism.
“However, the reason I’m posting this article on my Sunday religious post is what the article did NOT say: Namely, the very idea of suggesting that a biological object was designed by an intelligence is ipso facto unscientific. And yet, we hear that all the time in standard discussions of “Intelligent Design.””
The standard criticism of intelligent design is a criticism of the belief in a supernatural intelligent designer, not a natural intelligent designer of which alien beings would be included.
This is why you see in scientific circles theories of “natural” intelligent designers of the universe, such as superhuman biological entities creating our observable universe.
The criticism of a supernatural intelligent designers hinges on the fact that supernatural intelligent designers are by definition outside of the purview of scientific inquiry.
If you say no, the God you have in mind is in principle provable by scientific methods, which by the way nobody has ever done, then those critics would say you’re talking about a “natural” entity akin to superintelligent aliens.
It is when you talk about your theory of an intelligent designer to be “infinitely complex”, and “outside the boundaries of time” and other grandiose and confident visions, that is where standard criticisms of intelligent design come into play.
Just pretend that I posted my response here, below yours.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
guest:
Nothing to apologize for.
If we both typed 2+2=4 at the same time, would it be any less true?
2+2=4 is good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice. 2+2=5 is what works for me.
I see you got the 5th comment here.
The alien thing just pushes the question of origin off to some unknown location. The god or abiogenisis debate would still ensue, detracting only the strict solar day creationists.
For me this is a simple case of appeal to magic vs. appeal to nature. As outlandish as these ancient aliens theories are, they are natural. I’ve never heard a description of a god that wasn’t magical. If natural and magical theories happen to be isomorphic, scientists should still (provisionally) accept one and reject the other. If physicists use quantum mechanics to create a worm hole to heaven in ten years, we can reevaluate.
To use an analogy Bob might appreciate, if you told me that the reason projectiles fall to earth is that an eight armed elephant man god decreed it, and I said, no, it’s because of gravity, wouldn’t it be weird to describe my position as inconsistent? “Because God did it” and “because aliens did it” are completely different explanations.
Scientists are people, which implies they are social, which implies that they can read the motives of ID advocates. The lack of evidence for secular ID, combined with the extremely obvious religious motivations of ID advocates, makes completely ignoring ID as a plausible theory (outside of tiny metal globe discoveries) a totally reasonable thing to do.
You no nothing of Ganesha’s work
“The criticism of a supernatural intelligent designers hinges on the fact that supernatural intelligent designers are by definition outside of the purview of scientific inquiry.”
The Scientific Method, itself, is outside the purview of scientific inquiry; To say otherwise would be circular reasoning.
Science is merely defined as pertaining only to that which is empirically verifiable so that cause and effect relationships can be isolated. Religion wouldn’t come into play in this context.
But when we’re talking about origins, you can’t just define non-scientific things out of existence and then claim that your side wins. Philosophy, and therefore religion, are possible factors in this context.
(Aside: The tiny metal globe is what happens when single-celled organisms come in contact with the Black Goo. They’re making a documentary about it that is scheduled to come out in 2016.)
Guest:
“The Scientific Method, itself, is outside the purview of scientific inquiry; To say otherwise would be circular reasoning.”
“Science is merely defined as pertaining only to that which is empirically verifiable so that cause and effect relationships can be isolated. Religion wouldn’t come into play in this context.”
“But when we’re talking about origins, you can’t just define non-scientific things out of existence and then claim that your side wins. Philosophy, and therefore religion, are possible factors in this context.”
guest, I was only describing the intellectual motivations of those who criticize supernatural intelligent design, because Bob was pointing out that the article he linked to did not criticize the theory of intelligent design.
I am not claiming “my side wins” by defining nonscientific things out of existence.
To respond to your points, now I give my own thoughts on this:
Supporters of supernatural intelligent designers are defining supernatural things into existence, when according to traditional method scientists it is only natural methods that can enable us very natural, mortal and finite beings to know anything about the objective world.
Also, the circularity problem you speak of I agree with, but please don’t make the mistake that it is unique to empircism and falsificationism. For one could also say that the Method of religious revelation is outside the purview of religious inquiry; to say otherwise would be circular reasoning.
“… but please don’t make the mistake that it is unique to empircism and falsificationism.”
… and …
“Supporters of supernatural intelligent designers are defining supernatural things into existence”
Depending on how “supernatural” is defined, I would say that this sometimes is the case, but is not necessary.
I argue that from the non-scientific nature of pneumena – observable by way of introspection – that only a supernatural source can account for it. Free will requires some kind of freedom from cause and effect, otherwise you’re not really choosing.
I’m not sure I understand your “religious revelation” analogy, and – you’ll probably thank me for this – at any rate, I think I can reword it so as to avoid having to discuss the analogy further.
My reworded position on the Scientific Method being circular is that the method, itself, is philosophical in nature – it’s a claim about the nature of knowledge, which is outside the purview of scientific inquiry.
Hope that will work better.
guest:
“Depending on how “supernatural” is defined, I would say that this sometimes is the case, but is not necessary.
I argue that from the non-scientific nature of pneumena – observable by way of introspection – that only a supernatural source can account for it. Free will requires some kind of freedom from cause and effect, otherwise you’re not really choosing.”
To clarify, did you mean “noumena”? I don’t know what “pneumena” is.
If you argue that ONLY a supernatural source can account for free will, then that is what I refer to about defining supernatural concepts into existence where introspection must invariably lead.
Yet I submit that no externalized supernatural being is either implied or required for us to have free will. In fact I would go as far as saying that our free will is what makes objectifying the concept of God even a possibility. In other words, the idea that a supernatural God is required in order to explain free will, has things backwards. Free will is a requirement in order to explain a supernatural God.
But that is I think a debate for another day.
“I’m not sure I understand your “religious revelation” analogy, and – you’ll probably thank me for this – at any rate, I think I can reword it so as to avoid having to discuss the analogy further.”
“My reworded position on the Scientific Method being circular is that the method, itself, is philosophical in nature it’s a claim about the nature of knowledge, which is outside the purview of scientific inquiry.
Hope that will work better.”
No need to restate your position because I agree with it. My point is that your introducing of a supernatural God, understandable only by non-scientific methods of inquiry, is ALSO a circularity. What you are proposing as a seeming solution to the problem of self-referentiality in the case of the scientific method, is no less present in the case of any method that purports to be able to prove its own pronouncements.
Religious revelation as method is philosophical as well. It purports to make claims about how we come to know what we allegedly know about supernatural Gods.
“In other words, the idea that a supernatural God is required in order to explain free will, has things backwards. Free will is a requirement in order to explain a supernatural God.
“But that is I think a debate for another day.”
When that day comes, I’d like to pursue this line further, as I think it’s the most important.
“Religious revelation as method is philosophical as well. It purports to make claims about how we come to know what we allegedly know about supernatural Gods.”
True, but religion doesn’t define philosophical or scientific (which is just philosophy applied to empirical things) sources of knowledge out of existence.
More importantly, it’s an undisprovable theory, and therefore not a scientific theory at all, says Popper at any rate… which is as close as we have to a working definition of what is science and what is speculative fiction.
http://www.peterfhamilton.co.uk/index.php?page=The_Nano_Flower
More importantly, it’s an undisprovable theory, and therefore not a scientific theory at all, says Popper at any rate… which is as close as we have to a working definition of what is science and what is speculative fiction.
Not sure why this is supposed to be undisprovable. Presumably you think we can disprove the claim that you are an alien, so why not a blob of goo?
In any event, I feel obligated to point out that Popper is taken a lot more seriously by blog commenters than he is in contemporary philosophy of science. Falsificationism is philosophically problematic and doesn’t describe how science actually operates.
How do you intend to go about proving I’m not an alien? We have some very subtle technology you humans cannot even start to comprehend.
So you get yourself a theory that can neither be proven nor disproven, that is to say, it has no effect on anything, doesn’t provide any predictive capability. What are you going to do with it now? Even if you feel in your own mind this is useful, other than personal comfort what are you going to build on that?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s your life to waste, enjoy it any way you like.
Unlike MF, I had thought that ID included the possibility of aliens rather than supernatural agents. ID’ers are careful not to specify the origin of the design, just that there must have been a design. Attributing this to God is a step beyond ID
If we assume for a moment that Earth life were designed by an extra-terrestrial intelligence. We have no proof that this is not the case, so it must remain as a possibility. It would clearly be within the purview of science to discover the mechanism whereby this alien intelligence implemented their designs. Science is investigating the world, and if this had happened in the world then it is scientific to investigate it.
Science is a process. People come up with hypotheses, we can then look for evidence to support them. If we get enough evidence they may become theories. I could say it was scientific to hypothesise that up would become down in a room painted a particular shade of green. That is a hypothesis. I can investigate to see if there is any supporting evidence. No, there is not. There is no evidence of shades of green affecting gravity. Ultimately I could test the hypothesis, if I could attain the right shade of green. However, I could always claim that the correct shade had not been attained in any particular experiment, thus making the hypothesis not testable in practice.
Should this be taught in schools? After all, the initial hypothesis is within the scientific framework, and is theoretically testable. No, because there is not sufficient supporting evidence. It is pretty much the same for ID. Whilst it may come within the realm of science to speculate in this way, everybody understands that we cannot investigate every speculation. We must focus on those that have supporting evidence. ID does not clear this hurdle.
You really believe all the Christian believers who want ID taught in schools are really just wanting teachers to include the possibility of biological aliens?
Of course not, but that is not what they say – or at least not what the likes of Behe and Dembski say. I think the the intention is that the designer will be understood to be God. I think this “step beyond” ID will be taken by most of those taught ID -either assumed by themselves or possibly told so by the those actually delivering the message.
MF suppose you saw someone arguing on a blog that Austrian economics wasn’t scientific because it was really just about pushing a libertarian political agenda. You might jump in, arguing that in fact it was value-free and that its top practitioners had intentionally made it that way, to shield it from accusations of political bias. You might even quote Walter Block as saying that it is logically coherent to imagine an Austrian socialist, who studies Mises in order to learn the best way to impoverish people. Then someone says, “You really believe that all the libertarians who want Austrian economics taught in schools are really just wanting teachers to show budding socialists how to misallocate resources?”
So I guess Austrian economics isn’t scientific right?
Touche Murphy. You make a fair point.
Harold made a universal statement about IDers. He said “ID’ers are careful not to specify the origin of the design”.
I don’t believe that is out of some humble sense of restraint. I think in many cases it is out of strategic necessity. That is what got me to respond the way I did.
I think the reason Christian IDers are careful not to mention God is to get ID taught in schools “through the backdoor”, and then after it is there, they can begin to “Oh let’s just give that intelligence the name of God, you know, for convencient”.
Now I am not saying this is from nefarious intentions, just that to a large degree the world of education makes that strategy a possibility, of resorting to “I shall not name the intelligence” strategies to get God into public education by calling it “ID” at first.
The concept “Intelligent Design” arose out of theology. It is a religious concept. Thomas Aquinas used it as one of his five proofs for God.
Harold makes it seem like the whole ID crowd are composed of people who are not sure about whether it is God or aliens as the source, and leave that question unanswered. How many IDers who are pushing for ID to be taught in schools are really the “We mean aliens! Aliens!” believers? Come on!
Now I don’t want to make any sweeping generalizations myself, and I don’t want to reject any argument based on the demographic makeup of its adherents. To address your scenario, if that person asked me “You really believe that all the libertarians who want Austrian economics taught in schools are really just wanting teachers to show budding socialists how to misallocate resources?”, I would not say that is an unfair rhetorical question. If the population of Austrian theorists was overwhelmingly without question composed of budding socialists who want to find ways to impoverish people, then I would answer that question with “No, BUT I would have to say almost all are yes!” and not try to pull the wool over the guy’s eyes by saying “Hey now, because Austrian economics is wertfrei, all that talk you hear about pushing Austrian economics in schools are from those who are unsure about whether socialism or anarchism is the way to go, they’re just trying to find out how human action works.”
Bob,
You are, of course, correct. For the most part, attempts to rule out a particular hypothesis as unscientific *by definition* are a waste of time, since the definitions in question change over time to accommodate new knowledge.
I think of ID as the equivalence of an acatallacitc monetary doctrine. You need to regress back to the point where no intelligence existed. In other words, the issue (from my perspective at least) isn’t whether a particular object could be the result of human (extraterrestrial/supernatural) action, but that it merely postpones the causality and is not an answer to the question.
See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt
Well, I suppose this ‘tiny metal circular object’ may be the first bit of evidence that aliens created life on earth via intelligent design,
Where is the evidence for divine intelligent design ?
I don’t think such a hypothesis is scientific either, actually. It may meet with the approval of scientists, but it’s still invoking an unnecessary and unexplained phenomenon ad hoc to an existing theory.
Is it even possible to actually test whether aliens from another planet directed the evolution of life on Earth?
Only if they’re still around and come forward with proof personally.
Of course, a theory not being scientific doesn’t mean it isn’t right. But the problem is there is no way to know whether unscientific theories are wrong.
I don’t think such a hypothesis is scientific either, actually. It may meet with the approval of scientists, but it’s still invoking an unnecessary and unexplained phenomenon ad hoc to an existing theory.
Some might claim that this comment is the result of intelligence, but that is still invoking an unnecessary and unexplained phenomenon ad hoc to an existing theory.
Yes Josiah, it’s not scientific to ignore the problem of other minds. It’s just polite.
Many years ago I read an article that referenced the popularity of new age belief among the literati. The observation that was made then that always comes to mind when I read scientists who cannot seem to understand that Star Trek was fiction: People who say they do not believe anything will believe everything.
I think life on Earth began like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8cop0TLR0
Yes. the Black Goo.
2016, folks.
Can we at least get the aliens to pay our debts so that Krugman can be right?
Hey now, Krugman has been crystal clear that the debt has to be owed to Earthlings for his point to work.