Ah, yes. Intelligent Design - Intelligent Origin Theory continues to boil over in the blogosphere. I found a trackback to the post linked above from John Schroeder at Blogotional, and decided to read it.
Unfortunately, I think all of this is "much ado about nothing," or at least a huge discussion over a minor matter. I think those of us on the Christian side of things are making this into a far bigger deal than we need to, and I think those on the evolution side of things are overstepping their boundaries.
Oh, the hidden premises buried in this one paragraph!
...continued in full post...
First: Neither side thinks this is "much ado about nothing". This is obviously true, since neither side is willing to quit the field.
Second: What, exactly, is "the evolution side of things"?
Third: What are "their boundaries"?
Reading further, I can see a few thoughts that have some bearing on these questions.
I shall now turn my attention to the matter of what science does and does not do. I have seen lots of stuff about theories being "falsifiable" or not. I am afraid, I don't get it. I'll explain science as I understand it.
Here's Schroeder runs into trouble. In failing to understand falsifiability, he fails to understand science, Master's degree notwithstanding.
Now to be fair, this is one of the big ways in which science is hard for people to understand. It demands an approach to knowledge that is completely backwards from the way we normally look at the world.
Normally, we think in terms of cause and effect – A causes B, which causes C, D, and E. D causes F and G, and so on. If we carry out some action, it will have some predictable result. We don't have to know all the innermost details of what's going on, as long as the result comes out right in the end.
Scientists attempt to build models to explain what happens in the world around us. Then they try to pick those models apart, looking for any cases where the models don't give the right answers.
Building the model is known as forming a theory, and trying to pick it apart is known as attempting to falsify it. If we find a case where the model does not describe what we actually see happening, then we have proven the model false, and we need to build a new one. (Or at least modify the old one.)
We can use unlimited imagination and creativity building models, but then they have to survive comparison with reality. If it predicts some observation that is not consistent with what we actually see, it is proven false, and out it goes. As long as it agrees with what we actually see, we keep it.
Why this emphasis on proving theories false? Why not just prove them true in the first place and have done with it?
We can't.
It's impossible.
A theory is an attempt to build a model that will cover all possible cases, throughout the entire universe, and for all time. There is no way to test all possible cases, nor any way to run a test on a theory everywhere in the universe, or at all times in the lifespan of the universe.
All we can do is test our theories in those parts of the universe we can reach, and look for observable consequences of these theories in the parts of the universe we can see. If the laws of nature change as soon as we reach a part of the universe outside our observable range, we'll never be able to tell.
We assume there is no such discontinuity. In a way, that's an act of faith, but in my opinion, no more so than assuming we're not all plugged into The Matrix and observing only what the master computer wants us to see. (Can you prove we're not?)
So we can generate theories like crazy, but testing them against the facts will winnow the vast majority of them out from the get-go. Some will last longer. Some, like Newton's Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation, will last for hundreds of years before we find some fact that doesn't match the theory.
Einstein's theories account for some things Newton's theories don't. Therefore, Newton's theories are now shown to be false (they've been falsified), and Einstein is right – subject to new data that proves him wrong.
So what are the boundaries of science?
God is, by definition, supernatural – that is to say, outside the system. Thus no scientific system or model can ever include God. That statement; does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that because God is outside the largest system we can define, the physical universe, he cannot be a part of the scientific process. In fact, this affirms that God is supernatural and not subject to our understanding – a fact that I personally take great comfort in.
OK, so far, so good. However, there is one other thing we have to look at.
Stipulating, for the moment, that God exists, what is his effect on the world? Is there any observable consequence of his existence? Is there any observation we can make that would yield different results based on whether there is, or is not, a God?
Astronomers believe there are clouds of cold, dark matter around galaxies. They believe this because galaxies are spinning faster than they should, given the amount of visible matter they contain. The stars and clouds of gas we can see are not large enough – do not have enough of a gravitational pull – to keep the stars in the galaxy from flying away from each other from the spin. It's like piling a whole bunch of pebbles on a lazy susan and spinning it as fast as you can –' the pebbles go flying off the sides. Those rapidly spinning galaxies should have dispersed long ago. Something we can't see is there, and it exerts enough gravitational pull to make up the difference.
One thing science is capable of saying about God is whether there is any need to invoke him as part of any theory. And so far, no theory has been proposed that would yield different results in the case where there is a God, as opposed to the case where there isn't.
The equations for gravitational force have no God term in them. Neither do the equations for motion. Chemistry ultimately obeys Schroedinger's wave equation, which also lacks a God term.
And Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution which did away with any volitional act on the part of the life forms that were evolving. Giraffes developed longer necks over time, not because individual giraffes wanted to reach higher; they developed longer necks because the individuals with shorter necks were less likely to succeed in the task of passing on their genes.
The entire process is reduced to a mechanical model, with no need for any volitional act on the part of any agent. Just as Newton did away with Aristotle's notions of rocks racing faster in joyous anticipation as they neared their home realm in the earthly sphere, Darwin did away with life forms desiring a particular change and working to achieve it – and with external intelligences guiding life forms toward any sort of teleological goal.
We should fight the political battle here, but let's change the battleground. Rather than try and get God's role in creation somehow inserted into the curriculum, why don't we work to limit the curriculum, so that it is God neutral – which is what evolution really is. Science has nothing to say about God – he is outside the realm of science, definitionally.
Fine with me. Will you help me get the Discovery Institute and others of their ilk to follow along?
But one small problem:
If religion has no place in the classroom, then neither does "noreligion." Both are statements of belief, not science.
Between religion and nonreligion, all bases are covered. Mr. Schroeder has just stated that nothing should be taught in the schools. I know I've seen any number of anti-evolutionists who seem determined that if their views aren't taught, none will be taught. Seldom, though, is the goal stated that openly.
Maybe he didn't mean that. Maybe he simply lost his hold of logic for a moment.
Let's hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment