Perhaps the most universally accepted scientific truth in our day is that ‘the Earth revolves around the Sun,’ and this, rightfully so, is used as an example of an assertion that only a delusional maniac would dispute. The truth is that for millennia, people used their common sense and asserted that the Sun was moving because this is what they clearly observed. When observations of solar, lunar, and planetary motion are taken in total, however, the only theory that provides explanatory and predictive power is the heliocentric model of our solar system. Strictly speaking, we do not witness heliocentrism, but all the available observations are explained by this theory.
Intelligent-design creationism takes advantage of the inferential nature of scientific knowledge to fire the imaginations of those for whom purpose and intent must be recognized in all aspects of Nature. The scientific method, they say, must not be tied to any philosophical prejudices or be used to disqualify any conclusions that may point to intelligence or purpose in the Universe. However, there are many problems with what seems like IDC’s call for objectivity in scientific endeavor. Chief among these is that science is principally searching for the cause-and-effect mechanisms that do not depend on the intervention of intelligent agents. We would not be satisfied with the explanation that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius because an intelligent agent controls the process. Neither should we accept similar ad-hoc explanations for biological complexity simply to appease those for whom the notion of scientific objectivity conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Methodological Naturalism (MN hereafter) is the only methodology that has produced results in the history of scientific endeavor. The assumption that mechanisms must be verifiable and testable is only seen as a prejudice by those whose understanding of philosophy and history is derived from creationist webpages. This assumption is only applicable to scientific research and has no bearing whatsoever on the question of religious faith. The assertion is often made that Newton, Pasteur and Einstein were all believers, and consequently that the revolutions in scientific thought that their research spurred were dependent on supernatural mechanisms. This is absolutely false. These believers conducted research that serves as a model for empirical evidential inquiry. They proposed natural mechanisms to explain natural phenomena, and made predictions based on their theories that were later borne out. Most significantly, they achieved their findings in a way comprehensible to, and repeatable by, other researchers regardless of their philosophical or religious backgrounds. Intelligent-design creationism does not propose a comprehensible mechanism, has never made testable predictions, and depends solely on its adherents’ wish to see purpose in Nature.
The proponents of IDC are adamant that intelligent intervention is an inference drawn from the evidence, and that the knowledge of the identity of the intelligence is irrelevant to the inference. To support this, they claim that their methodology is no different from that used by SETI researchers or archaeologists. This puts them in a double-bind that doesn’t help their case one bit. Since we have independent knowledge of human sculptors and tool-makers, they say, the discovery of scupltures on Mars or tools in certain strata can be used to support the inference of intelligent agency. However, when the subject at hand is ancient microbiology and the sudden creation of species, we first need to have independent knowledge that intelligent agents have been responsible for these phenomena. By claiming that the identity of the designing intelligence is irrelevant (and admitting therefore that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such an agent), they assume everyone takes for granted the possibility that intelligent agency is just as likely an explanation as natural processes for the design, billions of years ago, of the bacterial flagellum or proto-replicators. It’s worth noting that an archaeologist who claimed to have found a human artifact in billion-year-old strata would indeed lead us to the conclusion of design, namely fraud.
The foundation of the IDC argument is the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to account for certain natural phenomena. Regardless of the inadequacy of arguments based on non-natural mechanisms, the basis of naturalism’s inadequacy is never explained. We are never told why natural, material mechanisms serve to explain (among many other things) the weather, heredity, and disease, but that there may be phenomena that are not accessible to naturalistic explanations. Without this understanding of the limitations of naturalism, we have no reason to assume that any natural phenomenon (whether its origin is understood or not) is by definition support for the existence of intelligent agency in Nature.
Those who wish to see proof that the heliocentric model of our solar system is false need only look up and witness the Sun moving through the sky during the day. Similar common-sense arguments are put forward to support the inference of intelligent agency against what creationists see as the reigning scientific orthodoxy. Those who wish to make the inference are following a limited amount of observable evidence where they want it to lead. Intelligent design creationism is just such a selective, subjective methodology, and it speaks for itself.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
™ Version 4.2