Jun
7
Is ID Just Religious Pseudo-Science?
Back in April/May, you may remember that I posted a couple vignettes from Part 4 of Greg Koukl’s “Rapid Fire” series — in which he gives relatively brief yet well-reasoned responses to challenges heard in Christian apologetics — in STR’s “Solid Ground” newsletter. Those two posts were on consciousness and abortion, respectively. Now I have one from the recently published, fifth and final “Rapid Fire” entry.
This week’s topic concerns how much “religious” influence there is in the so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” approach to science. In fact, as has been asserted by some skeptics, isn’t ID really just a way to smuggle unscientific religious doctrine into scientific research? It’s a subject I have touched on in the past. Let’s see how Koukl tackles this one…
— — —
“Intelligent design is just religion disguised as science.”
This challenge is based on a linguistic misstep. The informal fallacy in play here is the fallacy of equivocation. When a key word in the broader context of this issue is used in two entirely different ways, it creates confusion and muddled thinking.
The culprit in this case is the word “science.” It actually has two distinct definitions in common parlance, which makes it vulnerable to the subtle linguistic sleight of hand present in this challenge.
The first definition is the most well known. “Science” can refer to a precise methodology — observation, experimentation, testing, etc. — that helps us discover facts about the physical world. Any explanation of the natural order that is not the result of the proper methodology is considered unscientific.
Consider the difference between astronomy and astrology. The charge that astrology is not science is based on the lack of methodological rigor required for it to be considered “scientific” in the same way that astronomy is.
The second definition of science adds to the first definition a philosophic requirement — the philosophy of materialism. According to materialism — also referred to as naturalism and physicalism [not exact synonyms but close enough for our purposes here] — nothing exists but the physical world governed by natural law rigidly determining every event in the universe. In Carl Sagan’s words, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”
Based on the metaphysical assumption of materialism, matter, energy, and the laws of nature must ultimately be adequate to explain everything in the world. Any account of some feature of the natural realm that doesn’t conform to this naturalistic philosophy is summarily disqualified as unscientific and labeled irrational by this standard.
Note an important distinction between the first definition and the second. The first dictates the method required for any enterprise to be considered scientific. The second dictates the kinds of explanations that will be allowed. Note American evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma: “Science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry.”
Though these two definitions usually go hand in hand — most physical phenomena are best explained by an appeal to natural processes — they’re not always compatible. Unique events like the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and the irreducible complexity of the biological world by their very nature resist a naturalistic accounting. Instead, they bear every evidence of intelligent design (ID).
Here’s the problem. Even when the proper scientific methodology is meticulously adhered to, if the results suggest transcendent intelligent design, the second philosophic definition of science is invoked to declare ID unscientific.
Here one encounters the cardinal rule in the game: No matter how compelling the physical evidence is, if conclusions consistent with sound scientific methodology (first definition) conflict with naturalistic, materialistic philosophy (second definition), the philosophy always trumps the methodology.
Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems that Darwinism is about scientific facts keyed to a sound methodology, and intelligent design is not, relegating it to the same category as astrology. This is not the case, though.
ID is summarily disqualified as “religion disguised as science” not because sound scientific methods weren’t in place (first definition), but because the philosophical implications are unacceptable (second definition). The equivocation occurs when the definition of science as methodology is subtly exchanged for the definition of science as philosophy to dismiss the legitimacy of ID, ergo the fallacy.
This move is the illicit linguistic sleight of hand I mentioned earlier. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation of the scene might indicate foul play and not accidental death. In the same way, evidence could, in principle, indicate that an agent was the one orchestrating biological development rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence for intelligent agency vs. evidence for natural causes. It’s precisely the way forensic pathology is done.
If we’re really interested in the truth, doesn’t it make sense to simply follow the evidence where it leads in an unbiased way, just like detectives do in criminal investigations? That does not make sense, apparently, to those who are committed to philosophical materialism. For them, any evidence for supernatural special creation — no matter how compelling on its face — is summarily tossed out of court.
Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution is permitted, either. Any denial of Darwinism simply cannot be countenanced as “science” since it is the ruling paradigm dictated not by facts, but by philosophy.
The evolution/design controversy is not about proper scientific method. It’s about the power of an academic elite to enforce a philosophy. If it were not for philosophical strong-arming being done in the field of science, Darwinism would have become a historical curiosity long ago.
— — —
Koukl’s response doesn’t address all the issues within this topic, of course, but his main point does reveal a major weakness by ID’s critics. I will briefly respond to one more common claim:
Contrary to what some critics may imply, being a proponent of ID Theory does not assume or require adherence to any particular religious affiliation. No religious text needed, either. However, it is also well worth pointing out that the case for intelligent design does indeed have notable theistic implications. As Stephen C. Meyer (among others) has argued,
“[T]he evidence for intelligent design in life and in the universe — when considered together — does point strongly to a transcendent designing intelligence — i.e., God — rather than an immanent designing agent within the cosmos itself.”
This is why so many theists — particularly of a Christian or Jewish persuasion — find ID Theory in general quite compatible with their religious belief system.
For another article along the same lines as Koukl’s (plus video), give this a look…
