December 29, 2004

Evolution & Intelligent Design

Even though my ethical beliefs have as central interbeing (interconnectedness) and consilience, I recognize that we do have different domains of knowledge in human affairs. Various human endeavors generate different ways of knowing. Yet, we also have reason, rules of conduct, and other heuristics to help us sort out things.

Science is not only obligated, but quite cognizant of the need to push arguments and probe deeply at weaknesses. That's how scientific progress takes place. One of the things I'm glad for in science is that one can be pretty certain that somewhere some scientist is pushing the envelope and probing in dark corners, not to mention weak spots, in order to further what we can know about a particular object of study.

Science works by building on top of what has gone before. Hence, it requires commitment to intellectual honesty for discovery. When that honesty or commitment is not present, we have serious trouble (As we've seen in various occasions Science is also twisted or distorted by those willing to put their interests ahead of the wellbeing of others -- seen most recently in the cases of Vioxx, Celebrex, and before that with anti-depressants and children).

Most of the scientists I know are far from "materialists" with no

appreciation for the wonder and awe in nature. Most are religious

folks. Most have a reverential attitude towards the natural world. Most

also recognize that their knowledge is only as good as the science

behind it, and as human nature can make it. In short, they are well

aware of human imperfection, of contingency, of Murphy's laws, etc. They tend to be agnostics when it comes to perfection, they tend to be agnostics when it comes to truth claims. What makes them fairly secure in their facts, discoveries, processes, and gained knowledge is: 1) that they take great pains to follow a naturalistic methodology, 2) that they work within strict guidelines and constraints, 3) that their field of study is clearly demarcated and bounded and confines what truth claims they can make, 4) that others are constantly checking their work in progress, 5)

that they have to specify with rigor and lots of detail the process of

discovery, their logic, their speculations, their theoretical

commitments, and their assumptions, 6) that they have to be willing (and likely will have to see) to see their work replicated in order to test it for validity; and, 7)

that their work has to find its way past a slew of tough minded peers

that submit it to serious scrutiny before it gets out for larger

consumption. Moreover, once it gets out for larger consumption they have

to withstand serious criticism and challenges to all aspects of their

work, with no sacred cows protected.

Religion does not have to go through all those things we just

mentioned for science. Religious knowledge is different in nature,

although it might seek to provide answers to some of the same issues. Of

course, I'm glossing over how we define "know," and "knowledge." I'm

not sure to what extent we can apply "knowing," as traditionally

understood, to religion. Yet, religious folks might very well feel

they know something about the universe, their life, the purpose of

life, how things work, and more. Moreover, they might combine religious

attitudes with scientific knowledge. Other religious folks might choose

not to, or might believe that to be apostasy. All these folks have a

right to believe as they wish, they have a right to give expression and

voice to their beliefs, as long as they follow some basic societal rules

(no human sacrifice, etc.).

But, and here's the key thing: in the Public school Biology

curriculum, we try to stick with Science's naturalistic methodology for

some simple reasons: 1) It makes for good science, 2) It leads

to knowledge claims within our domain, 3) we cannot make knowledge

claims about religious "truth", 4) we should not present one religious

theory and be fair to other religious standpoints that might be present

in the classroom, 5) if we didn't stick with science we would run afoul

of the U.S. Constitution. In short, if we add creationism to

the Biology curriculum, we are no longer studying science, we are

discriminating against other religious beliefs, and we run afoul of the

law of the land.

Religious students (and their parents) don't have to believe in

evolution and the process of natural selection. They do have to study it

and understand it. And here I mean truly try to understand it,

especially if they are going to critique it. There are many many reasons

why they have to study it and understand it, and they would take a bit

too long to post. I suspect we can figure those out easily enough.

For those who say that they don't want to teach creationism but intelligent design...

I would note that many intelligent design proponents out there speak

quite publicly about their religious motives and intentions for pushing

intelligent design in the Biology curriculum. That makes claims about

intelligent design's religious neutrality suspect. In addition, we ought

to start that conversation with some history. Arguments from Design are

quite old, and religious in nature. In fact, Aquinas made an argument from design in his early formulation attempting to prove the existence of God. A bit of reading of David Hume

would also clarify quite a lot. But even if we move to the peak of

contemporary intelligent design arguments (a move we need to make

because even Paley's arguments regarding the "watch and the watchmaker" are fairly well refuted by Darwin's idea of Natural Selection), i.e. those by Dembski and Behe, we ought to note two things: 1)

scientific responses to Dembski and Behe are numerous and powerfully

engage, challenge, and refute their scientific claims (irreducible

complexity, specified complexity, etc.); and 2) we are

left over with how to make sense of a claim about an/or intelligent

being(s) that has/have the knowledge, wherewithal (resources and power),

and inclination to create life on Earth (possibly in other places),

has/have a purpose, and stand far above natural laws as we know them. By

the way, this or these being(s) would also be responsible, even if

indirectly, for free will I would imagine. My friends, at this point we cannot claim we are making, doing, or talking science.

One question ought to be asked by all supporters of intelligent design

(heck everybody should ask it): What would have a higher probability: a

scientific explanation that provides a provisional yet sensible answer

to nature's complexity, or one that posits imaginary beings made of

whole cloth as creators to whom we can then attribute all sorts of

motives?

Whether such beings are posited as an omnipotent god (or gods), or as

super-intelligent aliens that have directed evolutionary development in

our world, we have much to sort out, little of which falls within the

realm of science, and thus not to be included in a Biology curriculum.

So.... Religion might very well ask a different question, "what's the point" as Tom

notes in his reply to my previous post on this subject. It might even

produce knowledge of "whether" rather than knowledge of "what" or "how."

That kind of knowledge however is not scientific knowledge, and we

ought not be teaching it in the Biology curriculum, although we ought to

be very concerned about it. In any of the cases, savvy, well

disposed people ought to make sure they can understand the claims made

at least to a certain point. Critical thinking requires

intellectual honesty also, and so, we ought to apply some sharp mental

grease to the kind of truth claims generated by religious accounts. Here

we run into some trouble. Apparently, we can't apply much critical

thought to some religious beliefs. I say apparently because once one

starts critically engaging some religious beliefs it is soon that one

finds that such beliefs are

based on revelation, faith, or some other means of understanding the

world. Those means are not friendly to critical rational attention.

Moreover, some religious folks get rather upset when their religious

beliefs are held up to the searing light of rational thought.

Frankly, I think people ought to believe, within reason, what they want

to believe. If you want to believe that a set of nature gods sprouted

out of mother earth and created the world we know, and thus you want to

worship mother earth as the giver of life, by all means have at

it. *But* I said within reason because in human affairs we ought to be responsible for the reasonable consequences of our actions, and the reasonable consequences of our beliefs.

We ought to always ask ourselves what are the consequences of our

beliefs, and we ought to have secular human society ethical standards by

which we can discern the common good in a world of such diversity.