Monday, March 18, 2013

But Is Evolution Science?


Review:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Dec. 20, 2005)

 

    In 2005 Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It is regarded as the definitive court ruling on Intelligent Design.
    The case arose when the Dover Area School Board adopted a policy requiring teachers of 9th grade biology to read to their students a brief disclaimer about the theory of evolution. The statement said that evolution was a theory and not a fact, that Intelligent Design is another explanation of the origin of life, and that a book was available in the school library if students wished to know more. The statement did not actually say that Intelligent Design was necessarily true or that evolution was false. Nevertheless, several irate parents sued the school district, alleging an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into a public school classroom. The judge reviewed the evidence and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
    [We should explain to our readers in the British Commonwealth that in the U.S. a "public school" is a school supported by tax dollars and controlled by the state. It is not an exclusive private school, as in England. Moreover, since the U.S. Constitution forbids an "establishment of religion," i.e., a state church, the content of public school education becomes a matter of controversy. How is it possible to provide an "education" that is secular, without becoming implicitly atheistic?]
    The judge reviewed the history of the Intelligent Design movement and concluded that "ID," as it is called for short, is essentially the same as creationism and is a form of religious belief. Since the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that creationism may not be taught in a public school classroom, Judge Jones ruled that neither may Intelligent Design.
    Judge Jones could have left the issue at that, but he did not. Instead, he wrote a 139 page opinion that explored all aspects of the issue, from the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the inner politics of the Dover school board.
    According to Judge Jones, the "seminal question" in the case was whether or not Intelligent Design is science. But what exactly is "science"? The judge cited a definition from the National Academy of Science: "In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science" (Kitzmiller, p. 66). The judge noted that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries science has limited itself to naturalistic explanations of phenomena. "Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or 'ultimate' explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of 'meaning' and 'purpose' in the world" (p. 65). He then concluded, quite correctly we think, that Intelligent Design does not meet that definition of science.
    What Judge Jones failed to mention, however, is that most of the great scientists of the 16th and 17th Centuries believed that nature has a rational structure precisely because it came from the hand of an intelligent Being. Virtually none of them thought that nature was the result of a process of natural evolution. In other words, almost all of them believed in some form of what we would call today "Intelligent Design," or what was know then as "natural theology." While they adhered rigorously to the empirical method, they did not claim that it could tell them the ultimate origin of things. As Sir Francis Bacon put it, "My first admonition (which was also my prayer) is that men confine the sense within the limits of duty in respect of things divine: for the sense is like the sun, which reveals the face of earth, but seals and shuts up the face of heaven" (The Great Instauration, preface).
Charles Darwin
    What Judge Jones also failed to notice is that Darwinism does not meet his definition of science, either. The plain fact of the matter is that evolution offers us an "ultimate explanation," but one that cannot be confirmed or tested by experiment. Moreover, Darwinism does in fact consider "issues of 'meaning' and 'purpose' in the world" – it is emphatic that there are none, at least none that inhere in nature. Why then is Darwinism so widely accepted among mainstream scientists? It is because it is philosophically coherent. In other words, Darwinism attempts to do the very thing that Judge Jones (and Francis Bacon) say that science should never do. And it is precisely here that evolution comes into conflict with religion.
    The common disability under which both theories labor is that an alleged prehistoric event cannot be subjected to direct observation and experiment. Neither theory is testable. Neither theory can be verified by means of the scientific method. And until a theory has been tested and validated through experiment it is still tentative: it may not be true at all.
    Why, then, is evolution considered "science"? It appears that Darwinists have suddenly change the definition of "science." Evolution is presumably science because it offers a completely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life's forms. Intelligent Design, by this reckoning, is obviously not science, because it leaves room for divine agency in nature. In other words, "science" is no longer just a method; it is a worldview.
    Because Christian theism is inherently religious, Judge Jones ruled that it has no place in the public school classroom. But does the First Amendment really require the public school system to indoctrinate our youth in a materialist philosophical system?

11 comments:

  1. So much silliness.

    ...most of the great scientists of the 16th and 17th Centuries believed that nature has a rational structure precisely because it came from the hand of an intelligent Being.

    No.197: ARGUMENT FROM UNNAMED SCIENTISTS (I)
    (1) Some famous scientists believed in God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists

    No. 96: ARGUMENT FROM EUROPEAN HISTORY
    (1) Many prominent thinkers in pre-modern Europe believed in God.
    (2) Let’s just forget about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    What Judge Jones also failed to notice is that Darwinism does not meet his definition of science, either.

    False Dichotomy. (Click here and this will help you.)

    The common disability under which both theories labor is that an alleged prehistoric event cannot be subjected to direct observation and experiment. Neither theory is testable.

    Claim CA612:
    "Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does. (Morris, Henry M. 1985.)"
    (Talkorigins: Index of Creationist Claims)

    It appears that Darwinists have suddenly change the definition of "science."

    Yet no scientific organisation ever noticed. Nor did the people that hand out the Nobel Prizes. Hmm. Neat trick. Utterly fantastic trick. It boggles the mind. How did they pull it off. They be tricksy?

    (facepalm)

    The Internet: Where religion comes to die.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment somehow found its way into the spam folder, so here it is.
      I did look at the video about false dichotomies. Several observations:
      In this case the dichotomy is not between "Did Susan build the model plane?" or "Did Jason build the model plane?" Rather, it is between, "The model plane was designed" and "The model plan was not designed." What, then, is the "tertium quid"?
      The film did mention several other possibilities, but the only one that has been seriously advanced in modern times is theistic evolution, which Darwin and his modern supporters have categorically rejected. According to them, the essence of their theory is that evolution is a completely naturalistic process. On the other hand, all that the Intelligent Design advocates have said is that the rational order and complexity of the universe cannot be accounted for apart from an Intelligent Designer. In the court case the ID advocates left open who the Designer might be. That would mean then that evolution v. ID is a proper dichotomy.
      I should also add that calling ID advocates "ignorant" and "uneducated" does not lend credibility to the Darwinist argument. Meyer, Behe and Berlinsky are all well-educated men. If I am not mistaken, Meyer has a PhD in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University. Maybe there's something deficient about the quality of science education at Cambridge that they could actually hand a PhD to someone who was NOT a Darwinist?

      Delete
  2. In other words, "science" is no longer just a method; it is a worldview.

    Worldview? Again?
    Gosh. Everything is a "worldview" to you. First, atheism was a worldview and now science is a worldview.

    Humpty Dumptyism
    "From the fictional character Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Caroll's Through the Looking-Glass, who, when asked what he meant by "glory", replies "I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'". Alice protests that this isn't the meaning of "glory" and Humpty Dumpty replies "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
    Noun
    Humpty Dumptyism (uncountable)
    1.(idiomatic) The practice of insisting that a word means whatever one wishes it to."

    I pity the English language in your hands.

    Intelligent Design, by this reckoning, is obviously not science, because it leaves room for divine agency in nature.

    Remember your 9th Commandment. You are breaking it again.
    Behold...

    "But how accurate is the ID whining that science unfairly rules out, a priori, supernatural or non-material explanations? As with everything else in ID "theory", this claim is based solely on deception and hand-waving.

    The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe
    2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
    3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
    4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
    5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

    NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

    However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

    To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the..."

    ReplyDelete
  3. The film did mention several other possibilities, but the only one that has been seriously advanced in modern times is theistic evolution...

    No.
    Bob, you are still creating a false dichotomy.

    Forget theistic evolution. You cannot insert your own belief by default.

    According to them, the essence of their theory...

    Pretend it doesn't exist. Wipe the slate clean.
    Press a magic button and make Darwin and all the work that came after him vanish into thin air.
    Whatever you propose as an explanation for something (ANYTHING!) must stand on it's own two legs.
    There's no getting around that.
    No handwaving will save you.

    If you want to drape your claim in the mantle of a scientific theory then that's not a queue to play silly twisty games with the English language to see how much you can get away with.
    You have to be honest.

    On the other hand, all that the Intelligent Design advocates have said...

    You have called it a scientific theory.
    It is not.
    You were lied to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I tried to point out in the original blog post, Intelligent Design does not meet Judge Jones' definition of "scientific theory." No theory about past events is "scientific," since a past event is not repeatable and therefore not testable. Scientists are simply speaking out of turn when they claim they can tell us what happened in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intelligent Design does not meet Judge Jones' definition of "scientific theory."

      1) Both you and I speak English.
      2) We have access to the Internet.

      Typing the phrase "scientific theory" into a search engine and finding a sound, easy-to-understand definition of the phrase is childishly easy. There's a multitude of youtube videos that can explain it easy enough.
      Judge Jones did not invent his own private Humpty Dumptyism. He uses the phrase "scientific theory" just like anyone else should.

      No theory about past events is "scientific"...

      No Bob.
      This is the Internet. Scientists need to know about the past. They study the past all the time.

      No theory about past events is "scientific," since a past event is not repeatable and therefore not testable.

      Bob, you have it wrong. You are talking out of your hat. No scientific field will back you up on this.
      You cannot find a science text book that will say this. Your understanding of how scientists go about their job is all messed up. Your ignorance is not something to be proud of.


      Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
      It's just not.
      You were lied to. You have been played for a sucker for all these years.
      Doesn't that make you just a little bit angry?
      Just a bit?

      I'm the one that told you the truth and set you straight. I gave you the most simple and reasonable methodology possible. I'm not spoon feeding you conclusions. I'm helping you think for yourself for once.
      I believe a "thank you" is in order.

      Delete
  5. Scientists may need to know about the past (actually, that's debatable) but that doesn't mean that a theory about the past is "scientific." It doesn't meet Judge Jones' definition of "science."
    (Note: under the definition used by Judge Jones, Albert Einstein was not a "scientist." He didn't test any of his theories in a laboratory).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scientists may need to know about the past (actually, that's debatable) but that doesn't mean that a theory about the past is "scientific."

    (..facepalm...)

    A theory is scientific. It has to be. Otherwise it would not be a theory, remember?
    Remember all the hassle I went to in order to explain to you about the importance of the English language and definitions and the meaning of the phrase "scientific theory"?
    Well, when you say stuff like that then that's why.

    It doesn't meet Judge Jones' definition of "science."

    It's not Jones' definition.
    Judge Jones speaks English.
    You speak English.
    I speak English.

    There is no dark wood filled with mysterious mystery that serves a metaphor of the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of this conversation.

    Albert Einstein was not...

    No.
    You are not talking to a child.
    Stop it.
    If you have to make this kind of argument then you are only revealing how hopeless your position is.
    It's sad.
    It's genuine embarrassment to read.

    The conversation is not about Einstein. He cannot help you.

    You made a claim. The claim is flat wrong.
    You were lied to.
    . You have been played for a sucker for all these years.
    Doesn't that make you just a little bit angry?
    Just a bit?

    I'm the one that told you the truth and set you straight. I gave you the most simple and reasonable methodology possible. I'm not spoon feeding you conclusions. I'm helping you think for yourself for once.
    I believe a "thank you" is in order.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, just thought I'd share this. Say what you like about "Darwinists", they seem to have a monopoly on humour.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm glad he made it to the bathroom in time!

    The Wikipedia article on Archeopteryx is also very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Wikipedia article on Archeopteryx is also very interesting.

    You are using a mainstream source and ignoring the fringe for a change?
    Wow.
    I'm impressed.
    Allow me to keep the flow going. Here's a documentary on flight.
    (Link)

    ReplyDelete