The science question in intelligent design

Intelligent Design creationism is often criticized for failing to be science because it falls afoul of some demarcation criterion between science and non-science. This paper argues that this objection to Intelligent Design is misplaced because it assumes that a consistent non-theological characterization of Intelligent Design is possible. In contrast, it argues that, if Intelligent Design is taken to be non-theological doctrine, it is not intelligible. Consequently, a demarcation criterion cannot be used to judge its status. This position has the added advantage of providing reasons to reject Intelligent Design creationism without invoking potentially philosophically controversial demarcation criteria.     

Deus or Darwin: Randomness and belief in theories about the origin of life

A simple reminder of the fact that we do not always control life's outcomes reduced people's belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This control-threat resulted in a relative preference for theories of life that thwart randomness, either by stressing the role of a controlling God (Intelligent Design) or by presenting the Theory of Evolution in terms of predictable and orderly processes. Moreover, increased preference for Intelligent Design over evolutionary theory disappeared when the latter was framed in terms of an orderly process with inevitable outcomes. Thus, psychological threat enhances belief in God, but only in the absence of other options that help to create order in the world.     

MOTIVES STILL DON'T MATTER: REPLY TO PYNES

Abstract This paper continues a dialogue that began with an article by Jeffrey Koperski entitled “Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones,” published in the June 2008 issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. In a response article, Christopher Pynes argues that ad hominem arguments are sometimes legitimate, especially when critiquing Intelligent Design (2012). We show that Pynes's examples only apply to matters of testimony, not the kinds of arguments found in the best defenses of ID.     

Sober on Intelligent Design

This response to Sober's (2008) Evidence and Evolution draws out and criticizes some consequences of his analysis because of its reliance on a likelihood framework for adjucating the dispute between (Intelligent Design) creationism and evolution. In particular, Sober's analysis does not allow it to be formally claimed that evolutionary theory better explains living phenomena than Intelligent Design and makes irrelevant the contribution of the theory of evolution by natural selection to assessments of the status of the argument from design. Finally, a rudimentary alternative framework for theory confirmation is presented here which avoids these conclusions by rejecting likelihoodism and deploying multiple criteria to the problem of scientific theory choice.     

Reviews

Religion in Mind: Cognitive Perspectives on Religious Belief, Ritual, and Experience . Edited by Jensine Andresen
Stages of Thought: The Co-Evolution of Religious Thought and Science . By Michael Horace Barnes
Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design . Edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner     

New Books on Darwinism Look at the Religious and Rhetorical Aspects of Evolutionary Theory

Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science , Cornelius Hunter, Brazos Press 2003 (1-58743-056-8), pp. 168, Hb $17.99
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design , Thomas Woodward, Baker Books 2003 (0-8010-6443-0), pp. 303, Hb $19.99     

I WALK THE LINE: COMMENT ON MIKAEL LEIDENHAG ON THEISTIC EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Is theistic evolution (TE) a philosophically tenable position? Leidenhag argues in his article “The Blurred Line between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design” that it is not, since it, Leidenhag claims, espouses a view of divine action that he labels “natural divine causation” (NDC), which makes God explanatory redundant. That is, in so far as TE does not invoke God as an additional cause alongside natural causes, it is untenable. Theistic evolutionists should therefore “reject NDC and affirm a more robust notion of divine agency.” However, this will, Leidenhag claims, have the effect that theistic evolutionists “will move their position significantly closer to Intelligent Design,” and so the line between TE and intelligent design is (or ought to be?) blurred. If successful, the criticism by Leidenhag would be bad news for theists who want to take science seriously and good news for those scientistic atheists according to whom there simply is no scientifically respectable way of combining theism and modern natural science in an overarching worldview. So, is TE stuck between a rock (of redundancy) and a hard place (of pseudo-science)? No, at least not due to the criticism offered by Leidenhag—but maybe religious naturalism is?     

From Atheism to Theodicy to Intelligent Design: Responding to the Work of Francisco J. Ayala

This article responds to a few of the major themes found in the work of Francisco Ayala. The author praises Ayala for strongly challenging the assumptions of many contemporary atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who believe that the scientific method can be used in service of scientistic conclusions. The author then goes on to examine Ayala's understanding of the relationship between science and religion. Finally, the author asks critical questions about Ayala's contributions to the theodicy problem and the critique of Intelligent Design.     

TENSIONS IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S CRITIQUE OF THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISM

“Intelligent Design” (ID) is a contemporary intellectual movement arguing that there is scientific evidence for the existence of some sort of creator. Its proponents see ID as a scientific research program and as a way to build a bridge between science and theology, while many critics see it merely as a repackaged form of religiously motivated creationism: both bad science and bad theology. In this article, I offer a close reading of the ID movement's critique of theistic evolutionism and argue that this critique is ultimately in tension with the movement's broader thought.     

God and the evangelical laboratory: Recent conservative Protestant thinking about theology and science

This review essay surveys 14 recent texts on theology and science published by six different evangelical (conservative Protestant) publishing houses since 1999. The spectrum of evangelical-theological approaches to evolution, natural history, and origins-of-life issues are presented in these texts, as are evangelical-theological perspectives on the Intelligent Design phenomenon, on theological and scientific method, and on the philosophy of science. Summary observations about the status quaestiones of the theology-and-science discussion in the evangelical world at the beginning of the twenty-first century are provided, and future developments anticipated among conservative Protestants in their engagements with the sciences.     

THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Abstract. This paper examines the impact of two formalizations of evolutionary biology on the antiselectionist critiques of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It looks first at attempts to apply the syntactic framework of the physical sciences to biology in the twentieth century, and to their effect upon the ID movement. It then examines the more heuristic account of biological‐theory structure, namely, the semantic model. Finally, it concludes by advocating the semantic conception and emphasizing the problems that the semantic model creates for ID's negative and positive theses.     

Methodological naturalism and the truth seeking objection

Methodological naturalism, the exclusion of the supernatural from the natural sciences, has drawn critique from both proponents of Intelligent Design and some philosophical naturalists who argue that the methods of science can also be used to evaluate supernatural claims. One principal objection to methodological naturalism has been what I call the truth seeking objection. In this article I develop an understanding of methodological naturalism capable of answering the truth seeking objection. I further also argue that methodological naturalism as a convention of science can be best defended by abandoning scientism. In this way methodological naturalism can be reconnected to the original theistic context in which it was first developed.     

AN ALGORITHMIC INFORMATION THEORY CHALLENGE TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN

William Dembski claims to have established a decision process to determine when highly unlikely events observed in the natural world are due to Intelligent Design. This article argues that, as no implementable randomness test is superior to a universal Martin‐Löf test, this test should be used to replace Dembski's decision process. Furthermore, Dembski's decision process is flawed, as natural explanations are eliminated before chance. Dembski also introduces a fourth law of thermodynamics, his “law of conservation of information,” to argue that information cannot increase by natural processes. However, this article, using algorithmic information theory, shows that this law is no more than the second law of thermodynamics. The article concludes that any discussions on the possibilities of design interventions in nature should be articulated in terms of the algorithmic information theory approach to randomness and its robust decision process.     

Subjective judgements influencing Christian beliefs about biological origins

Christians hold divergent views about cosmological and biological origins. Creationists read the early chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis literally, postulating a young earth and a limited role for mutation and natural selection in the development of biological diversity. Theistic Evolutionists accept current scientific accounts of biological evolution, seeing these processes as the mechanisms of God’s creative purpose. Advocates of Intelligent Design doubt whether the complexity and fitness-for-purpose of many aspects of the physical and biological world could have come about without the intervention of a Designer.

Examining the basis of these positions could help their adherents to be less zealous and divisive. Creationists could accept that their beliefs arise not principally from science, but from their hermeneutic stance, and that this stance is not necessarily correct, nor integral to receiving the Bible's theological teaching. Theistic Evolutionists could accept that excluding the possibility of God directly intervening at points in prehistory is illogical, given their belief in the incarnation, miracles and the efficacy of prayer.

The Creationist and Theistic Evolution positions share a strong desire to defend God’s honour and a sense that they more comfortably fit an authentic picture of God. These powerful affective judgements, while not irrational, do not constitute compelling logical arguments. A dispassionate evaluation of their validity and strength could be of much benefit. Advocates of Intelligent Design could admit that scepticism about the adequacy of current scientific explanations does not logically entail an insistence that direct intervention by a designer must have occurred: the explanatory power of science has been underestimated before. All parties are encouraged to accept that a detailed account of biological history is inaccessible and likely to remain so. A due humility is commended.     

VAISHNAVISM,ANTIEVOLUTIONISM, AND AMBIGUITIES: REVISITING ISKCON'S DARWIN‐SKEPTICISM

The International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), commonly known as the Hare Krishna Movement, has disseminated a flurry of antievolutionist media since its inception in 1966. Such communications frequently co‐opt arguments employed by Christian creationists and Intelligent Design theorists. At the same time, however, there are indications that a scattering of ISKCON publications have articulated relatively ambiguous, less oppositional statements about evolutionary theory. This article reconsiders ISKCON's Darwin‐skepticism by appraising recent, largely unexamined Hare Krishna publications, as well as responses to evolutionary theory expressed by ISKCON's founder, A. C. Bhaktivedanta, and his immediate Vaishnava forerunners. The analysis reveals that, although the majority of contemporary ISKCON materials are vehemently opposed to evolution, some leading voices demonstrate less combative, cautiously accommodating stances. These cases are suggestive of complexities in ISKCON's responses to evolution, both past and present, which are not necessarily encapsulated in the terms Vedic creationism or antievolutionism.     

Truth and Tension in Science and Religion

While evolution deserves theological support and inclusion in schools, the consensus views, Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution, present problems. Darwin presented two arguments: 1) that evolution, descent with modification, has occurred, and 2) that its “cause” is natural selection, the focus of neo-Darwinism. However, the products of natural selection, adaptations, are often not congruent with the lineages produced by evolution and its demonstrated effects are within species. The difficulty of using natural selection to explain evolution is used by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) to denigrate evolution and to argue for the inclusion of ID in biology classes. However, the force of the arguments in favor of ID disappear when evolution is viewed as an informational phenomenon. Evolution, like development, is a system of increasing complexity, and emergence the inevitable outcome of the transformation of matter whereby the information in DNA is expressed that accompanies energy dynamics. Evolution is witnessed by studies in comparative biology that reveal groups of related organisms and homologies, both the result of descent with modification.     

Retroductive Analogy: How to and How Not to Make Claims of Good Reasons to Believe in Evolutionary and Anti-Evolutionary Hypotheses

This paper describes an argumentative fallacy we call ‘Retroductive Analogy.’ It occurs when the ability of a favored hypothesis to explain some phenomena, together with the fact that hypotheses of a similar sort are well supported, is taken to be sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis. This fallacy derives from the retroductive or abductive form of reasoning described by Charles Sanders Peirce. According to Peirce’s account, retroduction can provide good reasons to pursue a hypothesis but does not, by itself, provide good reasons to believe the hypothesis. In successful applications of retroduction, pursuit leads to the accumulation of evidence. In retroductive analogy, comparison with other successful hypotheses is substituted for the genuine pursuit of evidence. We describe a case from ecological genetics in which retroduction plays a legitimate role as the initial phase of an ongoing research program that serves to accumulate genuine evidence for a hypothesis. We also examine two contexts in which the fallacy of retroductive analogy occurs: in defenses of Intelligent Design Theory and in defense of some hypotheses in Evolutionary Psychology.     

TWO BAD WAYS TO ATTACK INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND TWO GOOD ONES

Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value. Second, in his expert testimony in the Dover trial, philosopher Robert Pennock used repudiated claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience. His arguments hinge on the nature of methodological naturalism as a metatheoretic shaping principle. We examine the use of such principles in science and the history of science. Special attention is given to the demarcation problem. Third, the scientific merits of ID are examined. Critics rightly demand more than promissory notes for ID to move beyond the fringe. Fourth, although methodological naturalism gets a lot of attention, there is another shaping principle to contend with, namely, conservatism. Science, like most disciplines, tends to change in an incremental rather than revolutionary manner. When ID is compared to other non‐ or quasi‐Darwinian proposals, it appears to be a more radical solution than is needed in the face of the anomalies.     

Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board case, a federal district court ruled that Intelligent Design creationism was not science, but a disguised religious view and that teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional. But creationists contend that it is illegitimate to distinguish science and religion, citing philosophers Quinn and especially Laudan, who had criticized a similar ruling in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas creation-science case on the grounds that no necessary and sufficient demarcation criterion was possible and that demarcation was a dead pseudo-problem. This article discusses problems with those conclusions and their application to the quite different reasoning between these two cases. Laudan focused too narrowly on the problem of demarcation as Popper defined it. Distinguishing science from religion was and remains an important conceptual issue with significant practical import, and philosophers who say there is no difference have lost touch with reality in a profound and perverse way. The Kitzmiller case did not rely on a strict demarcation criterion, but appealed only to a “ballpark” demarcation that identifies methodological naturalism (MN) as a “ground rule” of science. MN is shown to be a distinguishing feature of science both in explicit statements from scientific organizations and in actual practice. There is good reason to think that MN is shared as a tacit assumption among philosophers who emphasize other demarcation criteria and even by Laudan himself.     

On the empirical inaccessibility of higher-level modality and its significance for cosmological fine-tuning

Synthese - In this paper we propose that cosmological fine-tuning arguments, when levied in support of the existence of Intelligent Designers or Multiverses, are much less interesting than they are...