Intelligent Design
I cannot let the chance slip: a judge in Pennsylvania slammed Intelligent Design. The New York Times editorial about it is here: Intelligent Design Derailed.
My point is simple: Intelligent Design is not science, it never was and never will be. For something to be scientific it has to be refutable through experiment or observation. Most people don’t realize that the purpose of scientific method is not to uncover ‘truths’ which is the domain of moral philosophy, it is to falsify hypotheses. If a hypothesis survives repeated attempts at falsification it can be accepted as a theory within the pantheon of scientific theories. [Thank you Sir Karl Popper for clarifying that!] It can always be falsified later on when better techniques or ideas come along. Thus our knowledge of gravity is theoretical and could be shown to be wrong at some time, so it cannot be referred to as a truth. Similarly evolution is a theory and could be shown to be incorrect in the future. Designating evolution as ‘only a theory, not a fact’, which the creationsists want to do, does not undermine or belittle it: the things we accept as ‘scientific thruths’ are things we accept as being correct until proven otherwise. All theories are not facts in this sense.
Since evolution theory has withstood all attempts to falsify it, it has to be accepted whether we like it or not; and whether or not it contradicts other explanations is irrelevant. It simply ‘is’! In contrast, Intelligent Design isn’t even a coherent hypothesis: it can’t be tested or falsified, it relies on what Daniel Dennett referes to as an intellectual ‘skyhook’ to lift it out of thin air, so it fails Popper’s definition of what science is. Ergo: don’t teach it science class.
What disturbs me the most about the whole evolution discussion is that the cultural conservatives are using it as a wedge to re-insert religious thinking into arenas where it no longer belongs because we have advanced our knowledge beyond the limits we had way back when our various religions were being developed. Instead of focusing on the more survivable pieces of Christianity [or Islam and Judaism for that matter] which would be [presumably] its moral value, conservatives look at things such as evolution as a threat to the entire fabric of their religion. It isn’t unless they make it so.
Even more disturbing is that a very significant portion of the American population cling to creationism and thus fuel the conservatives efforts to restrict science. This is a stunning failure of education, and goes to show how far we are from having an elightened electorate able to evaluate such discussions. Lest we all laugh and assume that the issue is not worth raising a fuss over: history should warn us. The Arab countries, now so far behind the rest of the world in learning, were once the intellectual epicenter of civilization. They lost their way when conservative Islam took root and eliminated any learning that wasn’t from the word of God. Four hundred years later they are paying the consequences of not fighting conservatism at its root. I’m glad the judge in Pennsylvania, a Bush appointee, knew better.
