The Demarcation Problem, God and ID
I have noticed that various debates about intelligent design assume that if ID theory does includes references to God then it cannot be scientific. Sometimes this is simply assumed, and sometimes it is argued for. These opponents usually agree that ID is not truly science. Perhaps it is philosophy, or perhaps it is pseudoscience, but it certainly cannot be science. All of the arguments I have currently heard for this position are not good, although some are better than others.
The common argument that I have heard is that science deals with the natural world, ID involves the supernatural in its theories; therefore, ID is not science. Although this is false (ID does not refer to the supernatural), this argument is indefensible. If we take the "natural world" to be referring to the the world that we can access with our senses, this argument claims that any sort of theory that invokes a supernatural being as an explanation for features of the natural world is not scientific. The problem is that "science" should also be understood in the natural sense, as referring to the systematic understanding of the natural world. In that case, the argument turns out to be a denial of full-fledged theism. The claim that science deals with the natural world is a claim that our systematic understanding of the world must be mediated by the senses. One cannot move from that premise to the conclusion that no supernatural entities may appear in science. One needs an extra premise: that there is no empirical evidence for supernatural entities. Yet that is precisely what is in dispute. So on a common understanding of "science" and "natural world", this argument begs the question against ID. The other understanding of "natural world" takes "dealing with the natural world" to mean that science must use methodological naturalism. Since this is also in dispute, this understanding also begs the question against ID. So this argument is a failure.
Another argument I have heard is that science deals with efficient causes but not final causes. Since ID deals with final causes, it is not a part of science. One should first be aware that this does not mean that God immediately leaves science. For example, if particular efficient causes (miracles) are best explained by God's existence, then science includes God quite directly. Not only this, but final causes can't leave science as easily as one might think. When science asks questions about the function of something (ie. appendix), it is investigating final causes as Aristotle understood them. Science does investigate such things, and quite frequently. Therefore, such a distinction will not be able to demarcate science from non-science.
I have also heard mere assertions that God is not a part of the natural world and therefore cannot be a part of a scientific theory. This does not amount to an argument. It is a theological assertion cloaking itself as part of philosophy. If God truly is the sustainer and creator of this world, then he is a part of the world in a way that nothing and no one else is. Therefore, this argument begs the question against theists.
All of these arguments fail, and I have yet to see one that has a good chance of succeeding. Perhaps this is part of the reason that these arguments are convincing less people as time proceeds. There is no common ground that can be appealed to in order to rule ID out of science. So unless the advocates of the anti-ID position wish to encourage fellow believers, perhaps they should move on to better arguments.
The common argument that I have heard is that science deals with the natural world, ID involves the supernatural in its theories; therefore, ID is not science. Although this is false (ID does not refer to the supernatural), this argument is indefensible. If we take the "natural world" to be referring to the the world that we can access with our senses, this argument claims that any sort of theory that invokes a supernatural being as an explanation for features of the natural world is not scientific. The problem is that "science" should also be understood in the natural sense, as referring to the systematic understanding of the natural world. In that case, the argument turns out to be a denial of full-fledged theism. The claim that science deals with the natural world is a claim that our systematic understanding of the world must be mediated by the senses. One cannot move from that premise to the conclusion that no supernatural entities may appear in science. One needs an extra premise: that there is no empirical evidence for supernatural entities. Yet that is precisely what is in dispute. So on a common understanding of "science" and "natural world", this argument begs the question against ID. The other understanding of "natural world" takes "dealing with the natural world" to mean that science must use methodological naturalism. Since this is also in dispute, this understanding also begs the question against ID. So this argument is a failure.
Another argument I have heard is that science deals with efficient causes but not final causes. Since ID deals with final causes, it is not a part of science. One should first be aware that this does not mean that God immediately leaves science. For example, if particular efficient causes (miracles) are best explained by God's existence, then science includes God quite directly. Not only this, but final causes can't leave science as easily as one might think. When science asks questions about the function of something (ie. appendix), it is investigating final causes as Aristotle understood them. Science does investigate such things, and quite frequently. Therefore, such a distinction will not be able to demarcate science from non-science.
I have also heard mere assertions that God is not a part of the natural world and therefore cannot be a part of a scientific theory. This does not amount to an argument. It is a theological assertion cloaking itself as part of philosophy. If God truly is the sustainer and creator of this world, then he is a part of the world in a way that nothing and no one else is. Therefore, this argument begs the question against theists.
All of these arguments fail, and I have yet to see one that has a good chance of succeeding. Perhaps this is part of the reason that these arguments are convincing less people as time proceeds. There is no common ground that can be appealed to in order to rule ID out of science. So unless the advocates of the anti-ID position wish to encourage fellow believers, perhaps they should move on to better arguments.
posted by Matthew at 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home