withallyourmind.net

Yesterday, I commented on an article by Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization. In this article, Wieldand provides a list of what he believes are weaknesses in the ID movement. Here’s my take on his list:

(Weakness 1) Despite incorporating some extremely bright thinkers, the movement as a whole seems to have a recurring philosophical blind spot. Though they often correctly point out the religious foundations of Darwinism, the fact that all scientific reasoning is ultimately based on axioms/presuppositions (which are unprovable, hence metaphysical/subjective/biased by definition) should have alerted them to the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence related to the past.

My response: Having read and listened to much of what has been said by the ID movement, I think this entire statement has no basis in reality. The ID movement is deeply aware that all scientific endeavours are based on presuppositions which cannot be proved scientifically. I am not aware of any claims within ID that there is a “neutral” scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence.

(Weakness 2) Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a ‘story of the past’, which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism—and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).

My response: Almost all presuppositions may be stated in both a positive and negative sense. Wieland is wrong to think that the presuppositions of the ID movement can only be stated negatively. For example, an important presupposition of the ID movement is that if an intelligent agent has acted, one can reliably detect his actions. Another (the inverse of Wieland’s negative) is that there can be more causes in the universe than purely natural ones. I’m not sure offering a “story of the past” would be a strength of any scientific endeavor if it means going beyond the scientific evidence to fabricate a past which we have no good reason to believe (such as has been done by Darwinian evolution). On the other hand, to say that the ID movement has nothing to say about what has happened in the past would be incorrect. Intelligent Design has identified marks of design in nature by application of the explanatory filter. In this sense, it does tell us that an intelligent agent has acted. To say more than what the scientific evidence tells us is beyond the scope of ID, and for that matter, any scientific endeavor. Certainly, it is permissable to fill in the gaps of the data and present some “story” of the past, but we must be clear that this takes us beyond the realm of science and into a more interpretive framework.

(Weakness 3) They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?

My response: Refusing to make a firm commitment to a particular “story of the past” when the evidence does not support a particular story is not to be construed as a weakness, but as a strength. Do we really have access to the “exact” history of life on earth or the “exact” sequence of events in science? I think not. If the average evolutionist veiws this as absurd, it is because he is guilty of misusing science to support a dogma of the past which is not supported by scientific evidence. If ID commits this same error, they are no better off than the Darwinians. To be evasive is not disingenuine if one has no right to speak beyond what one may know. Actually the individual participants in the ID movement do have their own views concerning the past. But they do not inject those views into the scientific discussion, because the science cannot authoritavely establish those views. Again, this is a strength of ID, not a weakness.

Okay, enough for today. More supposed weaknesses examined tomorrow.