mormonsandscience

Post #2 on Intelligent Design (ID) (see below) argues that ID is scientific, as long as it focuses on natural processes and approaches these in an empirical and rational fashion. But perhaps the more important question is: “Is ID science rigorous?” Let’s take a look at how well ID satisfies commonly accepted criteria of scientific rigor.

Testable Predictions – A good theory allows us to frame testable hypotheses.  Does ID allow us to make predictions about what is going to happen or what has happened in the past, and are we able to investigate these phenomena in an empirical manner? 

Sure. The theory of ID can produce hypotheses that may be tested in an empirical manner.  For instance, a common ID hypothesis is that there are systems that are irreducibly complex. (Irreducible complexity is the idea that some living mechanisms are too complex to have arisen through the gradual process of natural selection because each part must be in place for the structure to function.) We can test this hypothesis by looking for irreducibly complex systems in nature.  In time more complex hypotheses such as “biological systems smaller than size X designed to carry out functions of sophistication Y are irreducibly complex” may be possible.

However, to the best of my knowledge irreducible complexity (IC) is currently limited to “let’s go out and find evidence for IC.” What is lacking is some sort of manipulation of the IC process in the laboratory that would allow conclusions like: We manipulated biological system X in our laboratory and, true to our prediction, the system evolved irreducibly complex mechanism Y because of our manipulation.  In my opinion, this limitation puts IC on the same level as macroevolution – there is plenty of evidence in the real world supporting both hypotheses, but currently neither is capable of being subjected to crucial tests in a controlled laboratory setting. Two limiting factors are (a) in the case of macroevolution, a very long time is required for new life forms to supposedly evolve, and (b) in the case of IC, we know very little about the intelligent design language and whether or not we can influence it.  

Presently evolution has the upper hand on testability and predictability because we are able to manipulate genomic and environmental events in a way that allows us to test and predict microevolutionary events. If ID is to become a viable competitor, it will need to generate the same level of testability. According to influential historian of science Thomas Kuhn, new, competing scientific theories gain credibility when they offer fruitful alternatives to explaining existing phenomena and predicting new phenomena.  Anyway, ID is a relatively new science; we’ll see what happens in the next few decades. 

Falsifiability – A good theory is falsifiable. Does ID allow for risky predictions that will allow us to prove that it is false?

Sure. In fact, opponents of ID are hard at work falsifying the irreducible complexity (IC) hypothesis. This is a good thing because it means that a major hypothesis of ID is falsifiable. So has IC been falsified? Scholars like Ken Miller say yes. He claims that the creation of the bacterial flagellum (a complex, multi-part propeller system) can be explained by natural selection and is thus not irreducibly complex. He has pointed out that if we remove 40 of the 50 separate parts in a bacterial flagellum and left the 10 protein parts connected to the membrane of the cell, those remaining 10 parts may function as a Type-III secretory system. So this discovery refutes IC, right? 

In a strict Popperian sense, the answer is yes, but Popper’s theory of scientific progress is too idealistic - the correct answer is no. Science does not progress according to the strict falsificationist doctrine, and for good reasons which I will not go into here, but here are three important points to consider.  

First, scientific hypotheses are rarely in final form straight-out-of-the box, so to speak. At the first sign of contrary evidence, proponents don’t outright reject their hypothesis, much to the chagrin of their opponents. Advocates of a hypothesis usually modify the hypothesis to save it from rejection (called ad hoc explanations). As the evidence against a hypothesis builds and the hypothesis becomes overly complex due to constant modifications, then the possibility of outright rejection by the scientific community becomes a reality. Some say evidence against IC is mounting, so we will have to see what happens. 

Second, a crucial test of the secretory system is needed to provide more definitive evidence, yet no such test has been done.  Such as test might include taking the 10 genes that produce the part of the bacterial flagellum that connects to the cell membrane and replacing them with the corresponding 10 genes in the secretory system to see if a working flagellum results, and vice versa. This sort of test would establish whether or not the two mechanisms are truly similar.  

Third, by themselves, individual disconfirming tests rarely provide sufficient evidence to disprove a theory. Theories rely on several hypotheses and rejecting one hypothesis does not bring the whole theory crashing down. If research on the secretory mechanism ends up disproving IC, will this disprove ID? Well, it usually takes several disproved hypotheses to disprove a larger theory so the answer is ‘no’, that is, unless the theory rests on ONE major hypothesis. In this case, IDers would be wise to not place all their eggs into the irreducible complexity basket. If this is the case and IC falls, then ID will fall too.

Tentative Stance – scientists must recognize that their theories may one day be proven false. Are proponents of ID willing to accept that their theory may one day be proven false?

The idea that ID may be proven false is a HUGE problem here, folks. What sincere believer would be willing to consider that there is no God, or be willing to accept that there is no evidence of divine design in nature when the scriptures say otherwise? Here we see the real danger of tying up theology with science. If you bet your religious beliefs on a scientific idea being true, what happens when that scientific idea is eventually proven false, as so often happens? You could go into a faith crisis tail spin. 

I believe that ID proponents will hang onto their theory in a dogmatic fashion if disconfirmatory evidence builds. They will do this because of their religious convictions in God, but it is not very scientific to hold onto a theory that has been disproven. In the past, those who have held onto dead theories are often viewed as nonconformists who are unwilling to accept scientific progress. Thomas Kuhn says that these people often go to their graves holding onto dead theories. 

I have been fairly hard on ID with this last point, but I believe that it is risky to tie-up religious beliefs with science. I consider my religious beliefs infallible and my scientific beliefs to be fallible. Yes, I am more confident in the reality of my faith-based experiences than I am in the reality of scientific theories about the natural world.  

Now, to level the playing field on this issue, it is fair to say that evolutionists are equally dogmatic about evolution. This claim is evidenced by the way the evolutionary community has attacked ID from the get-go. I am not talking about the legitimate concerns with religious creationism; I am talking about the “you are crazy and unscientific to challenge evolution” attitude. This dogmatic attitude, which was effectively portrayed in Ben Stein’s film Expelled, is unscholarly. 

Concluding Thoughts 
ID can be scientific.  It is anti-scientific to deny a legitimate endeavor like ID a voice in the scientific marketplace of ideas. If ID has legitimate ideas to bring to the table, then let’s hear them out and then allow debate, refutation, and criticism. ID will live or die; either way, let the scientific process, not the political process, decide its fate. 

ID should not be rejected outright just because it presents a theory that challenges evolution. One of the virtues of science is that it is a democratic institution in the sense of encouraging an open and free exchange of ideas. It should never prematurely foreclose on legitimate ways of viewing the natural world. This, I believe, is the main message of Expelled.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) scientific?  This post explores this issue by considering whether ID fits the traditional definition of science. 

Caution is needed when discussing whether something is a science because definitions of science vary as do the criteria by which we judge the scientific status of a discipline.  Yet I believe that by applying general principles it is possible to reach a coherent decision, a decision that most people familiar with the fundamental tenets of science can agree on.

Definition of Science
Most people agree that science is the study of the natural world.  By “natural” we mean phenomena that are empirical, rational, and explicable.  Empirical refers to phenomena that are directly or indirectly observable, rational refers to phenomena that can be understood in a logical and coherent fashion, and explicable refers to phenomena that can be explained through some natural, law-governed process.  

Let’s see how these criteria apply to religion.  Religion cannot be scientific because it involves phenomena that are not directly or indirectly observable, like spirits.  It also involves phenomena that exceed our capacity of human reason such as the Atonement.  And it involves phenomena that cannot be explained through natural law-governed processes, like miracles.  Now this does not mean that miracles, spirits, and God do not exist – it means that they are not scientific.  They are faith-based concepts which is exactly how God intended them to be.  

Clearly religion is not scientific and modern science was never intended to investigate religious phenomena, but what about ID?

The basic tenet of ID is that there is physical evidence of intelligence, information, wisdom, and purpose in nature.  That is all there is to it, but it is somewhat disingenuous to leave it at that.  Clearly an underlying assumption is that the source of this intelligence and wisdom is God.  However, in order for ID to qualify as scientific, deity must be left out of the picture when engaging in scientific investigations because deity is supernatural, not natural.  Moreover, the results of ID investigations cannot be presented as evidence ‘proving’ the existence of a supernatural being because the supernatural is outside the domain of science.  

If ID can avoid these traps, it can be scientific because it offers empirical, rational, and explicable ways to investigate natural phenomena that reveal intelligence and wisdom.  Put differently, the physical evidence for intelligent design is empirical, rational, and explicable in terms of natural laws, notwithstanding those laws being decreed by a supreme being. 

Is it possible to carry out rigorous scientific work while believing that God is manifested in the things you are studying?  Yes.  Some of the greatest scientific minds did just this.  Galileo's, Boyle's, Copernicus', and Newton’s theism in no way diminished their scientific rigor.  These pioneers of modern science spoke of deity, thanked deity, and occasionally mentioned deity in their writings, but they did not let their belief in God get in the way of their rigorous scientific work, nor did they use their science to ‘prove’ the existence of God.  

IDers have to walk a thin line here.  In order to stay on the side of science they need some ground rules, including the rule: "Thou shalt not make deity the center focus of ID".  To make deity the center focus of research is to make science subservient to religious beliefs.  If this were to happen we would digress to the religion-science relationship that existed in the Dark Ages.  In the centuries following the death of the apostles, the Catholic church embraced Neo-Platonism to make the church more appealing to its critics and persecutors, and during the 13th century the Catholic Church hijacked Aristotelian teachings and incorporated them into its doctrines to prevent dissention.  Both of these events had long term negative consequences for both science and Christianity.  I can say with absolute confidence that we do not want to go there.

I think that the scientific community has the right to be skeptical of ID.  The scientific community has already had to defend science from religious creationist intrusions.  The ID community needs to prevent its more spirited members from pushing the envelope – any more “goofs ups” like the 2004 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial and I dare say that ID will lose all credibility before being given a fair chance to prove itself.  I hope this does not happen.  In any event, ID must proceed with caution.

Sum: ID satisfies the traditional definition of science as long as it focuses on the natural manifestations of intelligence and wisdom inherent in nature.  Any attempt to make deity the center focus of ID investigations will render ID non-scientific by traditional standards.  Indeed, the scientific status of ID is tenuous because the logical source of this intelligence and wisdom is God.  But if the pioneers of 16th century Scientific Revolution could keep their beliefs in God separate from their science, even though they claimed to be studying the handiwork of the Creator, then so can ID.  IDers just need to remember that science considers the natural world, not the supernatural.     

In the next post we will look at whether ID satisfies the standards of rigorous scientific activity.  We will look to the philosophy of science (e.g., falsification, testability, etc.) and contributions from men like Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos for answers.

This is the first post in a 3-part series looking at Intelligent Design  (ID).  In this post I discuss the essence of ID.  

The current debate surrounding ID is overly influenced by emotions.  We often see emotions rise to surface in people’s comments on ID.  There are believers who claim that anyone who attempts to silence ID is a godless scientific materialist.  And there are scientists who claim that anyone favoring ID is a delusional and irrational IDiot.  As it turns out, they are both wrong.  There are theistic scientists who firmly oppose ID, and there are rigorous scientists who favor ID.

It is always a good idea to up front about your personal biases when discussing divisive issues, so here are a few of my biases.  First, I am a theist. Second, I regret the rise of secularism in science that began with the Enlightenment.  Third, I strongly believe that religion belongs in our Sunday schools and not in our secular schools.

Here is a question: If people want to learn about the Mormon Church, who should they talk to?  You will probably agree that they should talk to Mormons.  More specifically, they should talk to Mormon missionaries.  Likewise, if people want to learn about what ID is all about, they should talk to ID proponents, especially those who are tasked with educating others on ID.  For this reason I went to the Discovery Institute to learn about ID.  The Discovery Institute is the leading “think tank” on intelligent design.

Here are seven points characterizing the ID movement, followed by some comments from me.

1.   The basic tenet of ID is that there is undeniable evidence pointing to intelligence in the design of nature.  

--- I agree that creation points to God.  I don’t see a problem with this claim. 

2.   ID is a scientific enterprise.  

--- This claim depends on whether ID fits the traditional definition of science, and whether it satisfies the traditionally accepted criteria for being called a science.  I am not sure if ID satisfies these criteria - honestly, I am skeptical.  The next post will focus on this issue.

3.  ID is not creationism.

--- From what I’ve read so far, I tend to agree -  I have found no biblical narratives in ID.  Even if ID is an outgrowth of the creationist movement, it is unfair to classify it as such if it has truly separated itself from creationism.  IDers say they are not pushing creationism, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  As long as they are not planning a bait-and-switch on us, I have no problem here. 

4.  Evolution should be taught in schools.

--- Yes, IDers are pro-evolution in the sense that they claim that it belongs in science curriculum.  

5.  Science education needs to consider the weaknesses behind evolutionary theory. 

--- I wholeheartedly agree.  Far too many evolutionists have gone around claiming that evolution is irrefutable.  These sorts of claims are disingenuous.  Microevolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, macroevolution has not.  Sure there is evidence supporting macroevolutionary processes, but don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that it is a certainty.  If have posted comments on this issue in this blog (listed in the "evolution" category).

6.  Teaching ID in schools does not violate the separation of church and state.

--- I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it all depends on whether you define church as referring to a belief in God or organized religion.  I don’t think that believing in God is a religion in the way that Mormonism, Catholicism, and Protestantism are religions.

7.  Teachers should not be forced to teach ID. 

--- The Discovery Institute does not want ID politicized.  They say that if ID is to gain credibility, it should be done through the scientific process, not political fiat.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Lastly, the Discovery Institute is advocating a reserved approach to getting ID in school education.  They do not like the approach taken by the Pennsylvania Dover School District in 2004.  That school district required teachers to read a statement favoring ID.  In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial that followed, a conservative and supposedly religious judge named John Jones ruled against the school board.  I think these events have made the Discovery Institute more cautious – in fact they now urge teachers to avoid mentioning ID and to focus instead on the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

I hate to see ID politicized.  Politicization and federal mandates are not what science is about.  If ID has legitimate scientific claims, then let’s see what it’s got.  If it is a rigorous and promising line of research, then it will slowly work its way into the scientific community and gain credibility.  If it is not promising and rigorous then it will die and go the way of alchemy.  Unfortunately it may never get a fair shake because so many in the scientific community are anti-anything-resembling-god (a point brought out in Stein’s movie Expelled).  What are you atheists so afraid of?

In the next post I will discuss whether ID is scientific by looking at whether ID satisfies the traditional definition of science.  

Well, I finally had a chance to watch Expelled, Ben Stein’s movie on anti-intelligent design sentiments in academia.  

This movie was a major undertaking for Stein.  It was not a major undertaking in the sense of production costs etc - in fact, it was a fairly basic production in the sense of including mostly shots of Ben walking around interviewing scholars.  It was a major undertaking in the sense of launching a frontal assault on evolutionary dogma in higher education.  It is good that Ben is an actor and not an academician.  If he were an academician he would have been completely ostracized by the academic community for making this film.

I was not surprised by anything in this film.  As a university and college instructor for the last 8 years, I know the hostility facing proponents of intelligent design.  But this hostility is not limited to intelligent design.  There is an undercurrent of hostility and intolerance towards scholars who espouse conservative views contrary to the liberal agenda dominating higher education.  The godless liberal agenda is firmly entrenched in academia and science.  This means that people who question evolution and bring intelligent design into the classroom run the risk of being ostracized and denied tenure because they are seen as operating outside of “true science.”  

The opponents of intelligent design that Stein interviewed for the movie basically stated that they could never accept intelligent design as scientific.  For them anything that points to God is not science.  Like 17th century scholastic scholars who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope for fear of seeing anything that might make them question an earth-centered solar system, the atheistic scholars in the video refuse to consider evidence suggesting that intelligent design might be at work in the universe.  The thought that we might be able to scientifically evaluate the merits of an intelligent designer is revolting to them.  

Some of the anti-intelligent design scholars who agreed to be interviewed for the movie are Mike Schumer, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.  I have read books by Schumer and Dennett – they are accomplished scholars.  I respect what they have achieved and I think they are generally good people, that is, until they start trash talking believers.  Their harsh attitudes toward intelligent design are, I think, a result of feeling as though science is under attack by religious fanatics.  They fear that if anything resembling God makes it into science then we will regress to the Dark Ages.  I have even heard these sorts of arguments from Latter-day Saints - interesting, indeed. 

Stein’s movie adequately portrays the state of conflict in science today.  There are the non-believers who feel that they must defend science against religious fanaticism, and then there are the believers who feel they must defend their faith against scientific atheism which is overstepping its bounds.  There is more to this conflict, but that about sums it up.  True to his humorous side, Stein manages to capture this conflict in an entertaining manner.  The entertainment comes from brief clips portraying conflict, censorship, and dominance.  I had some good laughs watching these.  

With the intelligent design (ID) debate raging, I think that now would be a good time to discuss the merits of ID.  In the next three posts I will address three questions: (1) What is ID?  (2) Is ID any more or any less scientific than evolution? and (3) Should ID be permitted in education?  I will attempt to answer these questions in an objective manner, but first I have a little reading to do.

Do you believe that natural remedies have the potential to heal wounds and cure diseases?  I do because in Alma 46:40 it says that the Lord provided humanity with “many plants and roots [of excellent quality]...to remove the cause of diseases.”  Yet if you are like me, you rarely turn to natural remedies.  Like so many of you, I have taken a few herbs (the legal kind) and tried a couple of holistic remedies, but never knowing if they really worked, I quit.  

What is wrong with this picture?  Everything.  The Book of Mormon tells us that there are plenty of high-potency natural remedies out there, but we have insufficient knowledge about what they are, where to find them, and how they work.  Granted, there is literature on the efficacy and uses of herbs, but it is limited, especially in comparison to the literature on pharmaceutical drugs.

Drug development is a multi-billion dollar per year industry.  Drug companies pour millions of dollars into testing drugs to uncover their potential benefits and drawbacks.  The FDA drug testing process is standardized to optimize benefits and minimize harm to humans and animals.  Before releasing a drug to the public we want to know everything there is to know about it.  We want to know where it works, why it works, who benefits, and who does not benefit.  

Why hasn’t our pharmaceutical industry given equal attention to natural remedies?  If plants and herbs can heal and cure disease, then why are we not investigating natural resources with equal rigor?  By expending all of our resources on synthetic drugs we are ignoring half of the possibilities.  We’ve put all our eggs into one basket (the drug basket), and left the natural remedies basket largely empty.  I hope that I am not the only person who has a problem with this.  I believe that many people have died and countless others are leading less than healthy lives because we have largely ignored natural remedies.

We have not pursued natural remedies with the same rigor because natural remedies cannot be patented.  You see, when a drug company develops a new drug, the company is allowed to put a patent on it so that no one else can develop and sell the same drug.  Pharmaceutical patents are generally a good thing because they enable companies to recover and the millions they spent on testing and development, and make a profit. Without this protection there would be no incentive to develop drugs.  After a company has recouped its costs and made some money, a patent usually expires and other companies are allowed to make generic versions of the drug and sell it at a lower price. 

If a pharmaceutical company is unable to patent a natural remedy, then there is no financial incentive to develop and test herbs, plants, and roots – so they don’t.

This situation needs to change.  We could start by allowing drug companies to patent natural remedies.  By allowing patents, we will facilitate the rigorous testing of herbs, plants, and roots.  Until then, we will largely be in the dark about the best plants, doses, and combinations of natural remedies to use to treat injuries and cure diseases. (Mormons and Science 09.08)

What is the difference between a fast talking salesman and an evolutionary spin doctor? Not much lately, and here’s why.

For decades the evolutionists have enjoyed a monopoly on scientific explanations regarding the origins of humanity.  However, recently this monopoly has encountered stiff opposition from believers.  Believers are publishing books, articles, speeches, websites, and documentaries to show the world that the emperor has no clothes – in other words, that evolution is not the perfect, untouchable theory of science that some would like us to believe.  There are also ongoing efforts to dethrone the emperor and put it on par with competing theories of science such as the new intelligent design movement.  (Intelligent design is using science to show that the world was created by an intelligent and purposive entity.)  

This backlash against evolution has many evolutionists in a tizzy, and they are fighting back.  Like a spoiled kid who wants to be the only one at the top of a dirt pile, evolutionists are kicking and screaming to maintain their position of prominence in science and education.  They don’t like it when other people challenge their positions and they don’t want to go head-to-head with a competing theory.  As far as they are concerned, they are right and everyone who opposes them is wrong.  The spoiled kid on top of the dirt pile has even resorted to name calling; occasionally calling those who embrace intelligent design (ID) and reject evolution, “IDiots.” 

In their exclusive club there is no room for believers who accept intelligent design.  Yet with the majority of Americans believing in God, they are finding that it is lonely at the top, which is why they are seeking converts and attempting to justify their position.  To win people over to their side they have resorted to aggressive tactics of persuasion resembling those used in sales.  Yes, in a way the evolutionist is just like the door-to-door salesman – both are trying to sell you a bill of goods that you don’t want.  Here’s how.

1.  Like a fast talking salesman they are throwing around facts and specialized jargon to add legitimacy to their claims.  To prove that evolution can create a new species, someone might claim that “Polyploidization from hybrids resulted in speciation within the Tragopogon genus through a hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis.”  Only someone with a background in botany could appreciate this statement, so how can others dispute it?  They can’t.  If we do not understand statements like this then the evolutionists expect us to just trust what they are saying because, after all, they are the “experts”.

2.  Like a salesman they are telling us that we should accept what they are saying because an important person has bought into the program.  A typical example is the papacy in the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church has formally recognized evolution as a true principle of science.  If the leadership of the Catholic Church can accept evolution, then so can you.  Yet believers who accept evolution don’t seem to realize that a core tenet of evolution is random change in the genome.  God did not leave humanity’s creation to chance because His house is a house of order and we are created in His image.

3.  Finally, like a salesman they try to get you to accept something small, and when you accept, they raise the stakes to a higher commitment (a technique called “low-balling” in sales).  Specifically, after getting people to commit to lite evolution, they raise the stakes and tell them that they should also accept high stakes evolution.  Here’s how it works.  The fundamental definition of evolution is random change in the genes or genotype – no problem there.  And microevolution refers to minor change within a species – no problem there.  Now, they say, if you accept these types of evolution then you should also accept macroevolutionary change across life forms, the kind of evolution that turns a sea going fish into a land going salamander.  Not so fast!  The first two definitions have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the third has not.  Yet they claim that all evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and so you should accept the entire program.     

Learn to recognize these tactics and you will be better equipped to withstand the fiery darts of atheistic dogma.  Regardless of the scholarly arguments and famous people who accept evolution, remember that, on a general level, evolution is a straight forward and easy to understand concept – random genomic mutations and undirected environmental selection (survival of the fittest) turned simple molecules into complex human beings.  If this bill of intellectual goods opposes everything you believe about the origins of humanity, just smile and confidently say, “No sale!”