What is Science? Reflections on the Dover, Pennsylvania Decision

January 9th, 2006

Posted by: admin

On October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board of Directors in Pennsylvania attacked modern knowledge by officially elevating intelligent design to scientific status alongside Darwinian evolution and requiring that it be taught in science classes.
(See more here.)

In his decision in the case challenging this requirement, Federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled last month that the board had violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In surprisingly pointed terms, the Republican appointee of President George W. Bush swept aside the “breathtaking inanity” of the board’s policy, along with the arguments of intelligent design’s proponents. Writing that “the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity,” the judge found that ID is a religious concept, not a scientific theory, and therefore cannot be taught as science in the Dover public schools. (More here.)

Among other points in his decision, Judge Jones rejected the use of scientific-sounding language by the proponents of intelligent design. To address the constitutional issue, he recognized that ID proponents dress a religious concept in scientific costume to attain a political result.

The judge refers frequently in his opinion to the notorious “Wedge Strategy” from the Center for Science and Culture of Seattle’s Discovery Institute, the leading intelligent design think tank. The strategy is something of a mission statement for the ID movement, and a plan for replacing scientific materialism with a “science” rooted in belief in a Christian god as the creator of all things.


The proponents of intelligent design see scientific materialism as the root of many evils. “The cultural consequences of [the] triumph of materialism were devastating,” states the Wedge Strategy. Among the consequences listed in the document are the denial of objective moral standards; the idea that environment dictates our behavior (here they agree at least in part with the social Darwinists!); the undermining of personal responsibility; and the utopian idea that “coercive government programs” could “create heaven on earth.” (See more here.)

An uncannily straight line can be drawn from the Scopes monkey trial of 1925 to the solution spelled out in the Wedge Strategy:

“. . . we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a ‘wedge’ that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points.” [Emphasis added.]

In his opinion, Judge Jones uses the Wedge Strategy as evidence for his finding that intelligent design is a religiously motivated movement, not science, and therefore cannot be taught in public school science classes. In one particularly devastating section of the opinion, he quotes intelligent design pioneer William Dembski as writing that ID is a “ground clearing operation” that will help replace materialist science with Christian science, and that “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.”

That was good enough to settle the constitutional issue. But what about the broader issue at the center of the case made by ID proponents: Just what is science anyway?

Why should a system of ideas predicated on theology, in contrast to one based purely on materialism, be automatically rejected as being unscientific? As ID proponents like to say, shouldn’t finding the truth be much more important than making artificial distinctions between science and religion?

Superficially, they may seem to be on to something. After all, philosophers say distinguishing between science and non-science using formal criteria is quite problematic.

Karl Popper said this “demarcation” problem was at the very core of the philosophy of science. (See more here.) In fact, Popper argued that science could claim no unique methodology. So he advanced “falsifiability” as the solution: In order for an idea to be considered truly scientific, it must make specific predictions about what one might find if the idea were true. If those predictions are not borne out by experiments or observations, the idea is falsified and does not stand. By contrast, ideas that repeatedly survive such testing are, in Popper’s words, highly “corroborated” (but on logical grounds can never be said to be proven absolutely true).

Scientists, of course, buy Popper’s approach, arguing that intelligent design is not science because it makes no falsifiable predictions. But philosophers say there are serious problems with distinguishing between science and non-science on the basis of falsifiability. They point out that just because an idea fails to be corroborated doesn’t mean it has been falsified. Moreover, major scientific theories actually can be quite resistant to being falsified even when some observations fail to confirm their predictions.

So the demarcation issue remains.

Stephen C. Meyer (see), the director of the Center for Science and Culture, and a Ph.D. in the philosophy and history of science from Cambridge University, uses it to defend the proposition that intelligent design has equal status scientifically as Darwinian evolution, even if it is religious in nature:

“The use by evolutionary biologists of so-called demarcation arguments—that is, arguments that purport to distinguish science from pseudoscience, metaphysics or religion—is both ironic and problematic from the point of view of the philosophy of science. It is ironic because many of the demarcation criteria that have been used against non-naturalistic theories of origin can be deployed with equal warrant against strictly naturalistic evolutionary theories. Indeed, a corpus of literature now exists devoted to assessing whether neo-Darwinism, with its distinctively probabilistic and historical dimensions, is scientific when measured against various conceptions of science.” (See more here.)

If demarcation is indeed problematic, then on what grounds can a theory based on Christian religious beliefs be rejected as not being truly scientific? One might argue that it must be rejected because the conclusion — there is a God, and he designed the universe — has already been reached and is not open to question. This is, after all, a matter of faith. But isn’t it true that scientists often start with firmly held beliefs about how nature works? Moreover, ID proponents say that conventional science rests on its own unquestioned articles of faith, including the idea that God can have no part in scientific explanations of nature. (And for some scientists, there is no God at all.)

Maybe the answer to the demarcation problem simply is this: Who cares?

How science actually has been practiced seems more important than any philosophical complications to the epistemology of scientific knowledge. Judge Jones obviously felt that way. In his decision he wrote that “since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena . . . Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth.” [Emphasis added.]

This is a social and historical argument — one that would have made perfect sense to Thomas Kuhn, author of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” (See more here.)

A Kuhnian argument on the issue might go like this: What should be considered science, as opposed to non-science, simply is what the community of scientists working within the relevant paradigm says it is. As philosophically unsatisfying as that approach may seem, it has without question yielded great progress in our understanding of nature.

Kuhn argued that science makes more progress when it is constrained to material explanations within particular scientific paradigms. As he wrote, “By focusing attention upon a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable.”

It’s possible that enough anomalies in the Darwinian paradigm will eventually surface to force scientists to consider another explanation — perhaps even the idea that an intelligent designer played some role. But don’t count on it. Invoking the supernatural to explain the origin of species would suck the oxygen right out of biology. What kind of productive research enterprise could one build and sustain around testing for God? Maybe there is a way to do it, but ID proponents certainly haven’t shown what such a program might look like. Far from it. Their so-called theory is nothing more than a critique of the dominant paradigm — and an incredibly weak one at that.

So we should be relieved that Judge Jones avoided bogging down in the philosophical dispute over demarcation, choosing instead to stick with the program instead — the Enlightenment program.

As Daniel Sarewitz describes it, the program “prescribed the linking of scientific knowledge about the laws of nature to the technological control of nature itself for the benefit and progress of humanity; it was implemented in its most comprehensive and successful form by the Cold War organization of American science; and it is internalized today at every level of the diverse and complex modern research enterprise, and throughout industrialized society as a whole.” (See more here.)

The problem with the Enlightenment program today isn’t what the proponents of intelligent design say it is, namely that it takes God out explanations of nature. As Sarewitz puts it, the problem is that the Enlightenment program’s goal of “freedom from natural caprice . . . is unachievable because the very act of controlling natural systems introduces new variables that increase the unpredictability of the systems’ dynamics.”

So the emergence of complex global issues, such as biodiversity loss, climate change and the spread of disease such as AIDS, may well require some rethinking of how we do science. Many scientists already recognize this and are moving away from narrow, disciplinary research to emphasize broader, interdisciplinary approaches.

But that’s not all. Moral concepts are motivating new research agendas and ways to measure progress, Sarewitz argues. Science increasingly concerns itself with issues of “intergenerational equity” — the idea that we need to find more environmentally sustainable ways of ensuring human well being, not just for our own good but the welfare of our children and their children.

So even as God is excluded from science to protect the Enlightenment program and help ensure robust growth of new knowlwedge, science may be getting a dose of good, old fashioned morality. And thank goodness or God (your choice) for that.

7 Responses to “What is Science? Reflections on the Dover, Pennsylvania Decision”

    1
  1. James Hrynyshyn Says:

    A most well-considered analysis of the situation. I have one quibble: the inclusion of what I see as terribly flawed lines of reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. Specifically, his case against demarcation arguments because they are “problematic.” But as even Myers notes, they are only problematic “from the point of view of the philosophy of science.” I know of no one who would argue that falsification is much of a problem within science.

    What the Dover case as all about was the pedagogy of science, not philosophy. The legal argument was over whether ID should be taugh in a science class. No one was against introducing the concepts in a philosophy class.

  2. 2
  3. James Hrynyshyn Says:

    A most well-considered analysis of the situation. I have one quibble: the inclusion of what I see as terribly flawed lines of reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. Specifically, his case against demarcation arguments because they are “problematic.” But as even Myers notes, they are only problematic “from the point of view of the philosophy of science.” I know of no one who would argue that falsification is much of a problem within science.

    What the Dover case was all about was the pedagogy of science, not philosophy. The legal argument was over whether ID should be taugh in a science class. No one was against introducing the concepts in a philosophy class.

  4. 3
  5. Lynn Clark Says:

    In the ruling against Intelligent Design in Dover, Judge Jones argues for “science” as something related to the testability of questions and to the community of scientists who help to determine which questions are in fact testable. These are helpful salvos in the battle for scientific inquiry. But I am convinced that this battle is far from over.

    I spent the weekend reading Thomas Frank’s _What’s the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America_ (Holt, 2004). Frank’s take on the attraction of conservative views like ID is compelling. He argues that those who have suffered the indiginities of the economic downturn believe in the “moral decay” of our culture and lay the problem at the feet of “liberals” – rather, Frank notes, than at the feet of those he believes are the actual culprits of their true problems: the economic elite and their free market policies. Economic differences, long invisible in the U.S. mainstream, are today not seen as important enough to fight over. Battles over culture, on the other hand, are. Based on Frank’s argument, I think the problem is that today’s ID fans believe that they’re “taking a stand” that is aimed at preserving our culture from further decay, and this gives tremendous fuel to the ID debate.

    This means, unfortunately, that the “community of scientists,” whereas once a source of authority (and they still are, for many of us), now are linked ideologically with others who are “liberal” and therefore easily dismissed as on the wrong side of the issue (along with, you know, journalists, Hollywood, academics, and Ted Kennedy).

    The problem with this scenario is that it seems that the more ID is shown to be worthy of dismissal, the more that dismissal gives credence to the cause of its supporters. They are beleaguered and under seige, they think, and therefore they must press on in this most important battle.

    How to change the terms of the argument? I think the fact that Jones was a Bush appointee goes a long way. As long as leaders who are sympatico with parts of conservativism can be pushed to distance themselves from the righteous right, they help to marginalize them from the mainstream.

    The Scopes Monkey trial may have been a defining moment in the life of this battle, but it may be that this fight is just beginning.

    Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
    Assistant Research Professor
    School of Journalism and Mass Communication
    University of Colorado
    http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~clarkl

  6. 4
  7. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Hi Lynn-

    What do you make of these data:

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hodge_podge/000550party_id_and_id.html

  8. 5
  9. Tom Yulsman Says:

    I might add a few things to what Lynn Clark wrote. We’ve seen this yearning for simple solutions to complex problems arising from modernity before. In the early part of the 20th century, much more severe economic, social and cultural dislocations than we experience today helped pump oxygen into the sparks of a growing Nazi movement.

    Let me be clear: I am not equating ID with Nazism. Far, far from it. I’m sure the vast majority of the proponents of creationism, intelligent design, and fundamentalist religious belief are motivated by an enviable desire to do good works in the world. But what I am saying is that both movements were rooted at least in part in a similar yearning for a return to order, economic stability, and moral and cultural tradition — in short, a yearing for simplicity in the face of complexity.

    I am also not arguing that we are on some slippery slope leading to the likes of Nazism. We are on a different slope, one that began with the Scopes Monkey Trial. In the 1920s, fundamentalists saw the increasing salience of science, as well as Freudian psychology, socialism and decadent pop culture, as root causes of religious decline and a flood of related evils. Today, the proponents of intelligent design are the direct heirs to this legacy. This is made clear by the words of the ID proponents themselves, most notably in the “Wedge Strategy” from the Center for Science and Culture of Seattle’s Discovery Institute, the leading ID think tank. The Wedge Strategy identifies “scientific materialism” as the cause of “destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.” The cure for these evils requires replacing “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” And not just any God, of course, but the Christian God.

    If ever there were a simple solution to a complex array of problems, this is it.

    It may be true, as Lynn writes, that “those who have suffered the indiginities of the economic downturn believe in the ‘moral decay’ of our culture and lay the problem at the feet of ‘liberals.’” But clearly there is much more going on. Here, as in Germany in the 1920s, the prosperous and the economically disadvantaged alike are attracted to people offering simple solutions to complex problems. Boulder County is home to many upper middle class people with jobs in high technology who attend fundamentalist churches, believe in the literal truth of the bible, and therefore reject evolution whole cloth. The mega churches in prosperous communities across America are filled with these folks.

    To a person, they feel that modern culture is a source social disintegration, and they don’t necessarily believe this because they are hurting economically. Many actually are among the most well off people on the planet. The problem is this: They don’t want to believe that a tangled, intractable web of factors is the root cause of modern problems. Instead, they understandably are attracted to a simple, unitary, emotional explanation: We’re in this fix because we’ve turned our back on Jesus. So restoration can come only by turning to him, including — or most especially — in science.

    Lastly, Lynn Clark writes that “the ‘community of scientists,’ whereas once a source of authority (and they still are, for many of us), now are linked ideologically with others who are ‘liberal’ and therefore easily dismissed as on the wrong side of the issue (along with, you know, journalists, Hollywood, academics, and Ted Kennedy).”

    My question to Prometheus readers is this: To what degree have scientists brought this on themselves?

    – Tom

  10. 6
  11. Dano Says:

    “To what degree have scientists brought this on themselves? ”

    I, personally, know of few scientists who publicly link themselves with an ideological “side”. Certainly they gravitate to one “side” or another, but who doesn’t gravitate to others with commonalities?

    I suspect the linking is not from within, but I have no case studies nor hard evidence. Just 20+ years connected to the hard sciences in some way or another and 2 hard science degrees (& one not attained). The phrase ‘combat biologist’ comes immediately to mind as a possible indicator for further discussion.

    Best,

    D

  12. 7
  13. Rabett Says:

    Tom Yulsman again puzzles me. If there is a scientific explanation for something, and a contradictory religious one, held by adherents of a religion:

    Should a scientist hold to the scientific side of the argument or the religous one? If the scientist holds to the scientific side is she bringing criticism from the religous on herself? If the scientist holds to the religous side is she bringing criticism from the scientific side on herself?

    Or is the proper thing to either say nothing or be vague? Should only the scientist be vague, or should the religous also do so?