mormonsandscience

A couple of weeks ago a very good post on abduction appeared on Mormon Organon (view it here). In that post, Mr. Peck correctly argues that abduction, or inference to the best explanation as it is sometimes called, refers to a sort of logical competition between theories. A theory that explains a body of evidence better than its rival theory is more reasonable to accept. If we apply this concept to theories on the origins and complexities of species, evolution is the clear winner, although probably more by default than anything else. But this explains why evolution is so widely accepted. It is simply the best scientific theory available for explaining the origins and complexities of life.

Mr. Peck also effectively pointed out that most theories are created through accumulating observation and empirical facts. The process of collecting empirical facts and creating a suitable theory that explains those facts is sometimes referred to as an inductive generalization. Put differently, an inductive generalization involves moving from many observations to a single, explanatory theory. Many great theories like evolution have been created via inductive generalizations. Creating scientific theories through inductive generalizations is not a theoretical faux pas or scientific weakness; it is just one aspect of how science progresses.  

So far we have only considered the logic of theory discovery. As stated above, scientific abduction plays a role in determining which theories gain prominence. It also plays a role in determining which theory will be singled out for confirmatory investigation, however, the process of confirming a theory through testing is different from abduction.

The most common approach to confirming scientific theories is the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model of science. In short, the H-D model of science involves deducing observational hypotheses from a theory and testing those hypotheses in a controlled setting. If the results are consistent with the theory’s expectations, then the theory is tentatively confirmed. If the results are not consistent with the theory’s expectations, then the theory is tentatively disconfirmed.

Not all H-D tests of hypotheses are created equal. Influential philosopher of science Karl Popper pointed out that an ideal test of a hypothesis is one that is falsifiable and addresses, as much as possible, the core tenets of the theory. Popper called it making a risky prediction.

Theories that repeatedly survive falsifiable tests and risky predictions gain “certainty” status; we become so certain of their truthfulness that we start calling them laws instead of theories. Theories that have repeatedly survived falsifiable, risky predictions include Relativity, gravity, and the Germ Theory of Disease, to name a few.

Now, because of lengthy time requirements needed for testing falsifiable macroevolutionary hypotheses that make risky predictions a’la the H-D model of science, macroevolution has not risen to the same level of certainty we typically associate with Relativity and gravity. Relativity and gravity have repeatedly undergone crucial testing. In most cases, the results of these tests have been confirmatory (i.e., 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington solar eclipse expedition, atomic clocks in airplanes, and every time you drop your pen it falls, as predicted.)

I don’t have a problem with people saying that they personally accept the certainty of the theory of common descent. Evolution’s pre-eminence in the game of scientific abduction makes this statement legitimate. I do have a problem with people claiming that macroevolution and common descent have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, the scarcity of confirmed falsifiable and crucial tests of macroevolutionary processes does not warrant such claims.

Sources: (Philosophy of Science: A to Z by Stathis Psillos; Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues by Curd & Cover; Philosophy of Science: A Short Introduction by Samir Okasha.)

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.