Naturalism v. Intelligent Design
(At the invitation of Aziz Poonawalla, I'm cross posting this from RedState to Dean Nation. Thanks for the invite!)
In a previous thread, I posed a question whether creationism and evolutionism could be considered to be scientific ideas, given Karl Popper's stipulation that science must be able to accept that its core theories may be proven false at any time.
In that thread, a core idea seemed to leap out. In comparing the two ideas, the theory of evolution depends upon the philosophy of naturalism, while creationist theories rely upon the concept of intelligent design.
When speaking about the emergence of life, the core difference that is the root of the differences between the two ideas is the origin of specific features of living organisms that result in life. The theory of evolution states that these features are the result of random natural processes influenced by intelligent considerations. The theory of intelligent design disputes that random processes and environmental factors are able to produce these features in living beings. In intelligent design theory, these features are the result of being designed for the purpose of life by an intelligent creator.
While the nature of the creator in intelligent design is unspecified, at some level the creator must possess a supernatural character. (Else the theory descends into nonsense as questions about what intelligence created the creator become an endless loop.) Given the supernatural nature of the creator, it is clear that questions about intelligent design are not answerable within a scientific framework as the supernatural aspects of the theory are not within the realm of science. (In contrast to evolution theory, which states that the origin is the result of ordinary natural processes that can be assessed via scientific means.)
In the modern debate between evolution and creationism, it appears that rather than the differences being unique to the two theories, the differences between the two are only symptoms of a larger debate whether naturalism or intelligent design (or other approaches) are more valid methods of obtaining knowledge.
So given these thoughts, I will put forth the position that the debate between the creationists and evolutionists on a scientific level is meaningless. The level at which the debate should be conducted is at the philosophical level. While science is unable to deal with questions whether an all-powerful god created a universe thousands of years ago with the appearance that it is much older, philosophy can deal with these questions by asking whether it is possible for intelligent designers to exist and why they would behave in such ways, should they exist.
So, questions for the readers: First, am I full of hooey in this assessment of the creationism v. evolution debate? Is this really a debate that should be had within the confines of science, or is philosophy the proper venue?
Second, if one chooses to believe that science is an imperfect vehicle for discovering the truth (whatever that means), must such an honest person also entertain all alternative supernatural explanations for things like origins? If the answer is no, is there a rigorous process an honest knowledge seeker may use to determine whether one supernatural explanation must be given more weight than another?
Finally, if following the debate up to the philosophic level leads to another debate surrounding the nature of gaining knowledge, is there any point to bumping the debate up levels (should mankind have conceived of levels above philosophy that have relations to philosophy akin to the relationship philosophy shares with science), or are we experiencing a phenomenon that is not unlike Gödel's incompleteness theorm?
In a previous thread, I posed a question whether creationism and evolutionism could be considered to be scientific ideas, given Karl Popper's stipulation that science must be able to accept that its core theories may be proven false at any time.
In that thread, a core idea seemed to leap out. In comparing the two ideas, the theory of evolution depends upon the philosophy of naturalism, while creationist theories rely upon the concept of intelligent design.
When speaking about the emergence of life, the core difference that is the root of the differences between the two ideas is the origin of specific features of living organisms that result in life. The theory of evolution states that these features are the result of random natural processes influenced by intelligent considerations. The theory of intelligent design disputes that random processes and environmental factors are able to produce these features in living beings. In intelligent design theory, these features are the result of being designed for the purpose of life by an intelligent creator.
While the nature of the creator in intelligent design is unspecified, at some level the creator must possess a supernatural character. (Else the theory descends into nonsense as questions about what intelligence created the creator become an endless loop.) Given the supernatural nature of the creator, it is clear that questions about intelligent design are not answerable within a scientific framework as the supernatural aspects of the theory are not within the realm of science. (In contrast to evolution theory, which states that the origin is the result of ordinary natural processes that can be assessed via scientific means.)
In the modern debate between evolution and creationism, it appears that rather than the differences being unique to the two theories, the differences between the two are only symptoms of a larger debate whether naturalism or intelligent design (or other approaches) are more valid methods of obtaining knowledge.
So given these thoughts, I will put forth the position that the debate between the creationists and evolutionists on a scientific level is meaningless. The level at which the debate should be conducted is at the philosophical level. While science is unable to deal with questions whether an all-powerful god created a universe thousands of years ago with the appearance that it is much older, philosophy can deal with these questions by asking whether it is possible for intelligent designers to exist and why they would behave in such ways, should they exist.
So, questions for the readers: First, am I full of hooey in this assessment of the creationism v. evolution debate? Is this really a debate that should be had within the confines of science, or is philosophy the proper venue?
Second, if one chooses to believe that science is an imperfect vehicle for discovering the truth (whatever that means), must such an honest person also entertain all alternative supernatural explanations for things like origins? If the answer is no, is there a rigorous process an honest knowledge seeker may use to determine whether one supernatural explanation must be given more weight than another?
Finally, if following the debate up to the philosophic level leads to another debate surrounding the nature of gaining knowledge, is there any point to bumping the debate up levels (should mankind have conceived of levels above philosophy that have relations to philosophy akin to the relationship philosophy shares with science), or are we experiencing a phenomenon that is not unlike Gödel's incompleteness theorm?
Comments
I have to disagree with the contention that evolution is grounded in a naturalist assumption. Darwin himself may have been disillusioned with the faith, but the modern theory of evolution has no innate requirement that no super-natural forces are involved.
I also have to disagree with the statement that creation theories are grounded in intellgient design arguments. I think that ID encompasses a wide range of interpretation, some close enough to evolution that it would be equal heresy in the eyes of a creationist.
As a rule, it's not the intellgent design people who are te threat to scientific literacy.
I do think that Creationists' stereotypes of those who believe in evolution, like myself, are grounded in the assumption that evolutionists are also naturalists. But this is a reflection of Creationists' quasi-political need to perceive themselves as a persecuted minority, and hence cast their ideological foes in stark terms.
If that antagonistic posture could be dropped, one could easily envision a synthesis of the scientific method with the philosophical foundation of religion.
2) "The theory of evolution states that these features are the result of random natural processes influenced by intelligent considerations." or, more explicitly:
a) mutation (operationally random-there are nonrandom patterns in terms of how frequently mutagenesis occurs in the genome)
b) natural selection, non-randomc) genetic drift, random
3) "In contrast to evolution theory, which states that the origin is the result of ordinary natural processes that can be assessed via scientific means," or, more precisely, how we make speak of the origin, or describe in, in plain or mathematical language is constrained within the bounds of methodological naturalism.
4) "So, questions for the readers: First, am I full of hooey in this assessment of the creationism v. evolution debate? Is this really a debate that should be had within the confines of science, or is philosophy the proper venue?" i believe you are correct, it is a philosphical, not scientific, debate. i have posted over at my own blog data which suggests that the primaries in the ID movement are *philosophers* not scientists.
5) "must such an honest person also entertain all alternative supernatural explanations for things like origins? If the answer is no, is there a rigorous process an honest knowledge seeker may use to determine whether one supernatural explanation must be given more weight than another?" my personal opinion is that there is no real way to be "rigorous" about the supernatural, i don't buy the thomists, god as humans can conceive of him/it/she is basically an entity that exists outside the bounds of verbal encapsulation.