by Lenny Flank
(c) copyright 2006
Like the creationists before them, the IDers are faced with the seemingly unsolvable problem of arguing an explanation for the material world that is patently religious in nature, but at the same time attempting to argue to everyone that it is really "science" and not religion. The creationists unsuccessfully tried to get around this by arguing that the concept of a "creator" wasn't necessarily religious but could be treated scientifically. The IDers apparently learned a lesson from that creationist failure -- so the IDers instead refuse to present or discuss their "alternative theory" at all.
During the Kansas school board hearings in 2005, several IDers were asked about the "alternative explanation" offered by ID "theory", and flatly refused to present any:
Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no such thing as an ID theory?
A. I wouldn't say that. . . .
Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no theory?
A. I just said, no, I don't believe that.
Q. You believe that there is a definable theory of Intelligent Design?
A. Yes, I do. It's certainly in progress. I would not advocate putting it in the curriculum for reasons other people have given here. It's a young theory. It hasn't proved itself, it doesn't deserve a place in the curriculum as a requirement. It's an exciting theory and I think a robust one. . . .
Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design must, in the end, conclude that a designer was involved?
A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something is actually designed, then a designing mind had to do it.
Q. But you're not suggesting it was the design of man?
A. Designed by man?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the scene, no it couldn't be.
Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is a supernatural one, is it not?
A. I won't go there. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
****************************************
Q. What's your alternative explanation how the human species came into existence if it is not through common descent?
A. Design.
Q. And design would imply a designer?
A. Implies a designer, but we don't go there. . . .
Q. Isn't design a philosophical assumption?
A. No.
Q. How do we falsify the designer?
A. We don't go there. We're not going to talk about the designer. . . .
Q. So philosophically discuss it, but it's not a good idea to interpose the supernatural in what should be a scientific process. Correct?
A. We're not doing that.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further questions. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
***************************************
Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
A. Design.
Q. When did that design occur?
A. I don't know.
Q. Who was the designer?
A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching my class I do not answer that. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*********************************************
Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?
A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.
Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?
A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I'm skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.
Q. What is your personal opinion at this time?
A. That I'm skeptical about the Darwinian accounts of such things, but that it wouldn't bother me if it turned out to be different. I think my-- I also would tell you that humans and the rest of the non human living world, that humans have qualitatively different features that I think are very mysterious and hard to explain on any materialistic account of the origin of human life. . . .
Q. You think it's wise for science without a supernatural model to attempt to answer those questions that we still don't understand?
A. You know, I don't really work in that area, so I'm not going to venture any more opinions about the topic.(Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
******************************************
A. Intelligent design provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature. Detecting design but not detecting the designer. It's quite true that science doesn't have to be in the business of saying who the designer is. . . .
Q. What is the alternative explanation?
A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
Q. And your opinion as to when that design occurred?
A. I don't know. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
**************************************
Q. In your opinion, the intelligent designer is God. Correct?
A. Well, yeah, in my view I suppose I would agree with that.
Q. And would you not agree with me that for the interest of science, science should remain neutral as it relates to religion?
A. Oh, I agree, but I don't think--
Q. And would you not agree with me that introducing intelligent design into the curriculum, by definition, places an issue of faith when we cannot come up with a natural answer?
A. No, I don't agree with that. Design is neutral.
Q. How can design be neutral if you just told me the designer is God?
A. I-- I said that was my-- my-- I didn't say that-- that we should discuss with-- with children in the science class the identity of the designer or that my--
Q. So what do we do? Do we tell them it's a designer, but we disguise from them the fact that those who are suggesting intelligent design to be taught believe it's God? Do we keep that in secret from them as a mystery?
A. Well, right now with it-- what is encouraged is that when children ask a question-- When children ask a question about-- about the naturalistic response, they're told to go talk to their mom and dad or their parents or-- or whatever.
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) Or their pastor?
A. Or their pastor, right. (Carlson testimony, Kansas hearings transcript)
Behe was also asked about his "scientific theory" on the stand at Dover:
Q. Now when you use the term design, what do you mean?
A. Well, I discussed this in my book, Darwin's Black Box, and a short description of design is shown in this quotation from Chapter 9. Quote, What is design? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. When we perceive that parts have been arranged to fulfill a purpose, that's when we infer design. . . . Intelligent design looks to see if aspects of life exhibit a purposeful arrangement of parts as evidenced by their physical structure. It does not say how such a thing might have happened. (Behe testimony, Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005)
Q. So this is back to the claim that you say intelligent design makes, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A. Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. In this I was -- and when I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved in it's origin. . . .
Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you, you ve made this claim here, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
Q But it does not propose an actual mechanism?
A Again, the word "mechanism" -- the word "mechanism" can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.
Q So when you wrote in your report that "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism," you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.
A No, I certainly didn't mean to say that. I meant to say what I said in response to that last question, that while we don't know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process. . . .
Q Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.
A Yes.
Q I asked you, "What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?"
A Yes.
Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures."
A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.
Q And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it's just a criticism of Darwinian evolution's mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?
A I said "that's correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does not propose a step-by-step description, but it -- but it proposes or it accounts for some very important features of what was involved in it's origin, and that is intelligent activity. (Behe testimony, Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005)
Let's be blunt. There is no scientific theory of ID. When pressed, the most that IDers can do is recite a long list of criticisms of evolution -- all of which are untrue, none of which is accepted by the scientific body at large, and most of which are simply restatements of the same tired old "criticisms" that creation "scientists" have been making for almost 40 years now. By declaring that "evidence against evolution, equals evidence for design", the IDers are just continuing the very same "two models" idea that the creation "scientists" tried to argue. Unfortunately for them, the "two models" argument was decisively and explicitly rejected by the 1982 Maclean v Arkansas case, and also in the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard Supreme Court ruling.
Furthermore, and significantly in the legal sense, in the 1982 Maclean v Arkansas case, the federal court listed the characteristics of what constituted "science". That list consisted of:
"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses)" (Overton Opinion, Maclean v Arkansas, 1981)
Let's see how Intelligent Design "theory" measures up to those criteria:
1. "It is guided by natural law." Well, the IDers lose already. Not only is ID 'theory' not "guided by natural law", but ID "theorists" explicitly, clearly and plainly reject the idea that science should be based on "natural law". Indeed, their most strident complaint is that science in general and evolution in particular are "philosophical materialism" (their code word for "atheism") and that this, they say, unfairly rules out the IDers' non-materialist or non-natural "explanations". The only entity that is even capable in principle of using "non-materialistic" or "super-naturalistic" mechanisms is a deity or god, and ID thus inescapably has the intent and effect of advancing religion. Not only is ID "theory" not based on natural law, it explicitly rejects natural law in favor of supernatural methods, i.e., in favor of religious doctrine.
2. "It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law". Once again, not only does ID not explain anything by reference to natural law, it tries to argue that it doesn't have to. What the IDers are complaining about in the first place is that science, they say, unfairly rejects anything but reference to natural law -- i.e., that science rejects religious explanations. By arguing against the need for science to be "explanatory by reference to natural law", the IDers are doing nothing more than arguing that science should be forced by a court order to accept references to non-natural or super-natural mechanisms. In other words, they are arguing that science should be forced to advance religion.
3. "It is testable against the empirical world". ID 'theory' makes no testable statements. None at all. It can't tell us what the designer did. It can't tell us what mechanisms the designer used to do whatever it did. It can't tell us where we can see these mechanisms in action. And it can't tell us how to go about testing any of this. ID 'theory' consists simply and solely of various random arguments against evolution, coupled with the already-rejected-by-the-courts "two model theory". ID makes no effort at all to produce any positive arguments on its own that can be tested. The best ID can do is declare "evolution can't explain X, Y or Z, therefore we must be right". It is simply the same old "two models" that the courts have already rejected.
4. "Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word". Well, we don't know whether ID passes this test, since ID 'theory" refuses to make any conclusions. As I noted before, ID can't even give a coherent hypothesis, or even tell us how to form one. What do they think the Intelligent Designer might be? They, uh, don't know. What do they think it did? They, uh, don't know that either. What mechanisms did it use? Beats the heck out of them. ID "theory" can't (or won't) even reach conclusions on such basic questions as "how old is the earth" -- billions of years, they say. Or maybe it's just thousands of years. We, uh, aren't sure. "Did humans evolve from apelike primates?" Yes. Or, uh, maybe not.
Does ID think its conclusions are "the last word"? We won't know until ID actually makes some conclusions.
5. "It is falsifiable". Well, again, we don't know if ID's conclusions are falsifiable, because they go to great lengths to avoid making any conclusions that might be capable of being falsified. I suspect that is deliberate.
However, the core argument of ID 'theory', that "An Unknown Intelligent Designer" created life, is inherently unfalsifiable. After all, if we know nothing about the Designer, nothing about its nature, and nothing about what it can or can't do, then there is simply no way we can falsify any statement made about it. If I say that the designer does not have the physical or technical capability of manipulating biomolecules, how could we know whether it really did? On the other hand, if I say that the designer has manipulated biochemicals, what sort of evidence could we point to which would indicate that it didn't? The whole idea of ID is unfalsifiable. After all, the entire "argument" of ID boils down to "we think an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods". How the heck can anyone falsify that? How the heck can anyone, in principle, demonstrate that an unknown thing did not do an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods?
ID simply does not meet any of the criteria listed by the federal court in determining what is or isn't "science". In every conceivable legal sense, ID simply is not science.
The IDers, though, have now come up with a different strategy to force their religious opinions into science classes. If their religious opinions aren't science, they now declare, then they'll simply use the law to change the definition of "science" so it does include their religious opinions. As a newspaper interview with DI spokesman Stephen Meyer noted, "Meyer, however, says he's a scientist, who starts with scientific evidence, not the Bible. His goal -- a big one -- is to change the very definition of science so that it doesn't rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer is actively at work." (Seattle Times, March 2005) IDers have already tried to implement this legal tactic in February 2005, when the Kansas Board of Education (after losing an attempt to remove evolution from the state curriculum standards) attempted to revise the curriculum standards to alter the definition of science. Current science standards in Kansas state "Science seeks natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." (Kansas State Curriculum Standards, 2001) Since ID "science" cannot explain anything through "natural explanations" and indeed doesn't think it should have to, IDers on the Board introduced a measure that would change the standards to allow "non-naturalistic" explanations as well. The effort provoked the ire of scientists from all over the world.
But how accurate is the ID whining that science unfairly rules out, a priori, supernatural or non-material explanations? As with everything else in ID "theory", this claim is based solely on deception and hand-waving.
The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
Nothing in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.
However, what science does require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And here is where ID fails miserably.
To demonstrate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that "An Unknown Intelligent Designer" created both chimps and humans, but used common features in a common design. Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products".
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see . . . ? IDers, please fill in the blank. And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions -- things which, if found, would falsify the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then -- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the "common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given any testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment.
Take note here -- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact no limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testable by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to pop these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine -- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that The Unknown Intelligent Designer didn't like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me -- just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.
Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, whatever god you like. Feel free to include and invoke all of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed any other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method.
And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is not any presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID "theory" to make any testable predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design "theory" still can't follow the scientific method.
Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is not that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like every other hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't have to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position -- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science without being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism" or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever else they want to call it) boils down to.
There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other scientific hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone else's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If IDers cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone else has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.