DI fellow and ID advocate Michael Behe wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times yesterday. For more thorough responses, see Nick Matzke and PZ Myers. But I want to focus on one aspect of the article, the way it clashes with statements from other ID advocates. Behe states:
As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.
Let me suggest that this widespread confusion is primarily a result of the inconsistent explanations offered by ID advocates. For example, while Behe declares that ID is not a "religiously-based idea", many of his fellow ID advocates have bluntly declared it to be one, at least while talking to those who are motivated primarily by religion. As noted many times, William Demsbki has declared that ID is "just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.". Dembski also told a church audience of his real motivations last year, perhaps not recognizing that his sermon was being recorded for posterity:
"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it."
Likewise Phillip Johnson, the founder of the modern ID movement, who summed up the religious motivations of the entire ID strategy thusly:
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"
Now publicly, in the media or when talking to scientists, they of course say what Behe says above, that this has nothing to do with religion. But if there is any confusion to be found here, it is found in the clear contradictions between what ID advocates say in venues like the New York Times and what they say when they are speaking at churches or in religious settings. The second issue on which there is a clear clash between what Behe says in the Times and what other ID advocates is over whether ID is really a theory. Behe says:
In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.
Obviously, this would require that there actually be such a thing as the "theory of intelligent design". But as noted earlier, Paul Nelson, his colleague at the Discovery Institute, admits that there simply is no theory of intelligent design at this point:
"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
The mere declaration of a theory is not enough to qualify as real science. If Behe thinks there is an actual theory of intelligent design, he should state that theory and derive hypotheses from it that can be tested. The fact that neither he nor any other ID advocate has done so speaks volumes. And credit Paul Nelson for at least being honest enough to admit that.
- Log in to post comments
I don't think science is capable of proving the existence of God. At its best, the ID movement will inspire a few people to become scientists. Maybe some of them will do something beneficial like medical research.
"Let me suggest that this widespread confusion is primarily a result of the inconsistent explanations offered by ID advocates." I think you are being too generous. The confusion is the result of IDers intentionally misleading the public when not speaking to their true supporters.
ID is clearly not a theory, but is it a hypothesis? Does a testable hypothesis have to derive from a theory, or can it precede and give rise to the theory?
More confusion - lots and lots of it
http://designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
Dembski writes in a way that makes him look smug and unruffled - completely at variance the way he speaks - when he comes across as anything but that. Here's a response to Henry Morris re the 'intelligence' behind ID. Here is Dembski again trying to wriggle out of the religion-ID link in a way only he can. But Dembski and his 'theory' being what they are no one but the most gullible folk is going to buy this one. BTW I have posted a response to Ed's appreciation of Casey Luskin on the conflation of extreme ideologies and evolution. Waiting for comments.
Ed,
I love that Paul Nelson quote. In fact I "borrowed" it for my post:
Is Intelligent Design a Theory Yet?
I hope you don't mind.
Ed, you should submit your posting here to the Times for consideration as an Op-Ed piece. It's temperate and accurate both features that the Times sorely needs in this instance. The only change I'd suggest is to point out that Johnson and Dembski are the primary promoters of ID, a self-proclaimed science, yet neither has any education in science, much less biololgy.
Donald: a hypothesis precedes a theory. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
"HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation..."
In other words, one proposes a hypothesis as a possible explanation for some observation or phenomenon. Then one tests it in a rigorous fashion to try to determine whether the results support the hypothesis. After a long period of positive results, critical analysis, successful prediction and fleshing out in detail, a hypothesis may become a theory. A theory is a much stronger statement that is backed by a great deal of evidence and with a high probability of being true (where "true" means a reasonably good approximation of reality that can provide accurate predictions of the outcome of testing and experimentation). To be a theory, it must be able to predict the outcome of tests and experiments and to be judged on the basis of the accuracy of its predictions.
Mark-
Hypotheses are also often said to "flow from" a theory. Evolutionary theory can be stated fairly simply (the idea that modern life forms are derived from a common ancestor via descent with modification), but that's really just a summary of what is a large collection of theories addressing different aspects of the questions involved. There are theories within theories and tentative hypotheses, sometimes phrased as predictions of the nature of yet-undiscovered evidence, that can be used to test higher-level ideas. The use of such terms is fairly fluid and different people will often use them in different ways.
Ed - agreed. For someone who doesn't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory (or even a "law") I thought the dictionary definition would be best. Even the use of theory is a little confusing to some (a lot confusing to IDers) because virtually everything we think we know about the physical world is at least in some sense a theory, even the things we think we know best. And yet other theories have not quite reached that level of certainty.