Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Scientific Method and Intelligent Design

Some worthwhile thoughts on a tough subject:

Some readers seem to assume I want to argue in favor of intelligent design, and have sent me various arguments against the hypotheses. I can't imagine where they get the notion that I have any such need -- and in particular that I have any need of arguments that are made daily nearly everywhere. I'm familiar with them.

I have neither defended nor tried to refute the intelligent design hypothesis. What I have said is that if the intelligent design hypothesis generates falsifiable theorems then it is at least potentially useful. In particular, some intelligent design theorists have postulated that the Darwinians cannot explain how certain structures of "irreducible complexity" were able to evolve through natural selection: what were the steps, and how each step did not add a reproductive burden (and ideally would convey a reproductive advantage).

In some cases these challenges have resulted in rather detailed theories from the Darwinians. To the extent that these generate falsifiable hypotheses, this is all to the good, increasing our understanding of how natural selection works; and to the extent that these intelligent design assertions have shown the Darwinians that they don't understand how some features might evolve, that is all to the good as well. It never harms to know that there are limits to the utility of current theories.

Now I am aware that there are some "intelligent design theorists" who seem to be naive creationists incapable of following a scientific argument or appreciating evidence. What I don't know is how that is a refutation of intelligent design? I have heard high school physics teachers try to explain the basic quantum two-slit theory in terms that ought to have their students rolling on the floor. So what? Niven long ago observed that there is no cause so noble that it will not be espoused by fuggheads -- and that the fuggheads will often get all the press, making the cause look as if only fuggheads are in favor of it.

As to teaching "intelligent design" in schools, it doesn't happen often. The real question is who shall decide? Local school boards, or experts? And be very careful how you answer, because there are a number of propositions of far greater practical import, such as IQ, and phonics vs. "whole word" methods of teaching children to read English, and such like that have been imposed from above by the experts on the grounds that local bumpkins shouldn't have control since we, the experts, know what the right answers are; and we don't want public money wasted on teaching nonsense like phonics, and having children learn the addition and multiplication tables when every expert knows that The New Math, or Fuzzy Math, is a far, far better way to teach arithmetic... And that it is far more important to have diversity in history textbooks than to have very much about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Etc.

So long as the idea of scientific method -- the generation and testing of falsifiable hypotheses -- is shown, I don't have any great worries that bright kids won't figure out their own answers to matters like intelligent design; and I don't really care if my auto mechanic believes in his heart of hearts that he was divinely created and endowed by his creators with certain inalienable rights as opposed to his having evolved from bonobos without attention from his creator. I do worry that he knows how to read the output of the computer test equipment, and that he can figure out what the funny squeak is.

...

What I don't understand is the passion on suppressing intelligent design in the name of science. Some readers are convinced that the end of the Republic is at hand if one school district, anywhere, decides to mandate intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Given that the entire state of California forbade the teaching of English as a phonetic language for more than a dozen years, and still has very few teachers who understand how to teach that, which is the greater danger?

Mandating the "correct" position and requiring local schools to adopt that is a more dangerous principle than teaching an alternative to Darwin, without regard to whether Darwin is "really true" and belief in Darwin is so fragile that teaching an alternative would undermine belief in Natural Selection. I am not convinced that there is a school district that would teach "flat earth" as an alternative to the conventional wisdom, but if there were, I do not think the republic would fall if that were allowed. There would be ridicule and merriment and mirth, but I doubt the consequences would be much greater than that.

I suspect that too many readers have far too much confidence in our ability to shape beliefs in the public schools -- and too little in the education bureaucracy's abilities to undermine all learning in those schools.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'll answer this the same way I answered Vivian's question about school uniforms. I believe in the separation of school and state. This way, families are able to decide whether to send their children to schools that teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism,or any other theory. Privatization and Marketization of the schools would also offer choices in the areas of school uniforms, prayer in schools, lunch menus, field trip options, athletics, and every other conceivable component of educating children.

I'm an atheist. Within the framework of the government school system we have currently, if you want to have the schools teach Intelligent Design, you're imposing a religion-based theory on me. If you want to teach your kids ID,you can do so on your own, without imposing it on me. If you want to make it a part of the school curriculum, it isn't about what you want your kids to be taught. It's about what you want my kids to be taught.

Moneyrunner said...

Thank you for your thoughts. I’m not sure you understand the issues, so let me give it one attempt.

You seem to be happy with the way the schools manage the issues of school uniforms as well as scientific questions. If there are people who disagree you invite them to take their children elsewhere at their expense and enroll them in private schools.

That may be unexceptional except for one little issue, under present law these parents don’t get the tax subsidies that your government run schools get.

The second issue is the question if why the concepts you agree with should get government support when you deny others the same support. And don’t trot out the separation of church and state BS. If concepts of right and wrong are to be rigidly excluded if they are tainted by association with religion, we would have to eliminate many very fundamental laws beginning with murder.

I frankly don’t care if you are an atheist. What I object to is the arrogant snobbery exhibited by people who wish to impose their personal belief systems on the general public and seek to marginalize those who disagree with them.

Anonymous said...

You've completely mischaracterized my position. I'm not happy with the way government schools manage anything. I want government out of the business of managing schools. I want both you and me to keep the money that is currently taken from us by force to pay for the train wreck of government schools. That way you're free to choose your school that teaches what you want your kids to learn, and I choose the school that teaches what I want mine to learn.

I would rather not have either position subsidized by government force. I don't want either position imposed on either of us by a government monopoly. It's your position that imposes a viewpoint on me, and requires me to pay for it.