Science and Intelligent Design

1.Introduction This presentation describes: 1.the logic of science in relation to ontology (i.e. the study of reality), 2.the limitations of science as a method of investigating reality, 3.how science addresses these limitations to make inferences about reality, 4.differences between science and intelligent design as alternative approaches to understanding reality.

Science and Intelligent Design 1.Introduction (Continued) To distinguish between science and intelligent design the presentation will describe science and intelligent design and the differences between these approaches to understanding reality (or if you will, Absolute Truth).

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology Ontology refers to inquiries about reality—or Absolute Truth. Science cannot know reality because reality cannot be observed. Thus, science can never know the Absolute Truth. Science, must limit itself to investigations of observable phenomena to make inferences about reality.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) Science makes inferences about reality within the context of theories—empirically falsifiable sets of abstract statements about reality. That is: Theories make statements about reality. These statements use abstract concepts— ones that can refer to a broad range of observable phenomena. Theories can be falsified by observation.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) Because science investigates only observable phenomena, it can never verify a theory, but only find reasons to infer support for it. Thus, while one might observe a relationship that is predicted by a theory, the theory itself can never be proven as correct.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) A common misconception about science is that it attempts to know Absolute Truth, that it seeks ultimate cause. Science does not attempt to know Absolute Truth. Rather, it attempts to provide an explanation of phenomena, an explanation that can be falsified by observation.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) Consider, for example, the theory of evolution. While it is possible to observe a relationship between the physical environment and animal physiology, there is no attempt to claim that evolution represents Absolute Trust because it is impossible to prove that this relationship occurs due to evolution. Instead, one would infer support for the theory of evolution by observing relationships predicted by the theory.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) The procedure used in science to infer support for a theory is the attempt to falsify null hypotheses—ones that contradict the theory. For example, if scientists falsify the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between physical environment and animal physiology, then they assert that they have found support for the theory of evolution.

Science and Intelligent Design 2.Ontology (Continued) Scientists rely upon testing null hypotheses to avoid making illogical statements about reality. One example of a logical fallacy is affirming the consequent. The Fallacy Files provides an excellent typology of logical fallacies.Fallacy Files

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent Consider this series of statements (shown in the format of a syllogism): 1.Premise: If p, then q. 2.Observation: q. 3.Conclusion: Therefore, p. Note the logical fallacy: q might occur for other reasons than p. So, if we infer p from observing q, then we have made a logical fallacy.

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) For example: 1.If it’s raining (p), then the streets are wet (q). 2.The streets are wet (q). 3.Therefore, it must be raining (p). The streets might be wet, however, because: It was raining, but is no longer raining. The streets were just cleaned. Snow is melting.

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) To avoid affirming the consequent, statements in science are written as hypotheses. Hypotheses have two forms: the research hypothesis. the null hypothesis. The research hypothesis is the statement about reality: There is a relationship between x and y.

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) The null hypothesis is the counter argument to this statement: There is no relationship between x and y. Two essential elements of this logic are: 1.One tests the hypothesis of no relationship. 2.Both elements of the tested hypothesis must be observable.

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) Consider this example: The Angræcum sesquipedale is an orchid in Madagascar with a thinly shaped nectary of about inches in length. Upon observing this orchid, Charles Darwin, based upon the theory of evolution, made a startling statement: There must be a moth with a proboscis of inches!

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) No such creature had ever been seen or even imagined. So, Darwin was making a truly outlandish prediction! (Twenty-one years after Darwin’s death, such a moth was found in Madagascar.)

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) To illustrate the fallacy of making deterministic statements about ultimate cause, let’s place Darwin’s prediction within the format of a syllogism (in a very abbreviated form): 1.Premise: If evolution, then moth with long proboscis. 2.Observation: moth with long proboscis. 3.Conclusion: evolution.

Science and Intelligent Design 3.Affirming the Consequent (Continued) You can see the logical fallacy. We have affirmed the consequent (moth with long proboscis) to conclude that an unobservable cause (evolution) is valid. Because there might be other explanations for a moth with a long proboscis, we need to avoid affirming the consequent when investigating reality.

Science and Intelligent Design 4.The Research and Null Hypotheses The solution is to use the format of the research and null hypotheses. What Darwin was saying, to use the format of the research hypothesis (H a ), is: There is a relationship between physical environment and animal physiology. or: The orchid (environment) must have a moth that fits it and can pollinate it (physiology).

Science and Intelligent Design 4.The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued) To test this research hypothesis, however, would affirm the consequent. Therefore, scientists test the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis (Ho) is a statement that asserts no relationship between two variables. There is no relationship between physical environment and animal physiology.

Science and Intelligent Design 4.The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued) If the null hypothesis is rejected—if there appears to be a relationship between physical environment and animal physiology—then the scientist infers support for the research hypothesis that there is a relationship between physical environment and animal physiology. If the null hypothesis is not rejected, then the research hypothesis is falsified; it is shown to be false.

Science and Intelligent Design 4.The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued) Recognize that because science cannot verify an hypothesis, is it also impossible to verify the falsification of an hypothesis. Science therefore must rely upon probabilistic statements rather than deterministic ones. Science therefore tests hypotheses within a margin of error, which is called the Type-I error. The social sciences typically use a margin of error equal to 5%.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology We have described four requirements for an epistemology to be defined as science: 1.Phenomena of interest must be observable, 2.Hypotheses must be tested in the null form, 3.Conclusions are stated as probabilistic— within a margin of error. 4.The scientist must specify conditions under which the theory being tested can be falsified.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) The implications of these requirements are that science can never confirm that a theory accurately represents reality, even if no counter-examples to the theory are ever found. Observed relationships might be the result of the assertions of the theory. Or, they might occur for some other reason.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) For example, science can never confirm that evolution is the ultimate cause of the relationship between physical environment and animal physiology, even if no counter-examples are ever found. The relationship might be the result of evolution. Or, it might be the result of some other cause, such as intelligent design, for example.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.teleological Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Wikipedia

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) Proponents of intelligent design, most of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Wikipedia

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) Proponents of intelligent design state, for example, that because the universe is so complex, it must have been formed by an intelligent designer. A similar argument of intelligent design states that because celestial bodies move in very precise patterns in relation to one another, this precision of physics implies an intelligent designer.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) Recall, however, that a requirement of science is that theories must be capable of being falsified by observing counter-examples. When Darwin predicted the existence of a moth with a proboscis of inches in length, for example, he was willing to risk his theory on the outcome of finding this moth.

Science and Intelligent Design 5.Back to Ontology (Continued) Explanations that rely upon an undeniable cause cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot be considered as science. Because there is no possibility of refuting the existence of an intelligent designer, the argument of intelligent design represents an example of a teleological fallacy: it assumes intelligent design to confirm intelligent design.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms Earlier in this presentation, we discussed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Consider this syllogism: Premise: If Intelligent Design, then Complexity of the Universe. Observation: Complexity of the Universe. Conclusion: Then Intelligent Design.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms You can see the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Observing the complexity of the universe does not logically lead one to infer intelligent design, unless one a priori assumes intelligent design.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms Now, consider this correct form of a syllogism: Premise: If A, then B. Observation: A. Conclusion: Then B.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) For example: Premise: If Congruence (between physical environment and animal physiology), then Evolution. Observation: Congruence. Conclusion: Evolution.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) This syllogism is making an argument for the theory of evolution based upon the observation of congruence between physical environment and animal physiology. Although the syllogism itself is logical, the argument entailed by it cannot be science unless it meets these requirements.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) The requirements of science demand that: 1.the elements of the premise (i.e., physical environment and animal physiology) must be observable, 2.hypothesis implied by the syllogism must be tested in their null form, 3.conclusions must be made within a margin of error (i.e., the Type-I error), 4.scientists must provide examples of how the theory of evolution can be falsified.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) The theory of evolution meets these requirements: 1.the elements are observable, 2.hypotheses are tested in their null form, 3.conclusions are made within a margin of error, 4.scientists provide examples of how conclusions can be falsified. For example, Darwin was willing to falsify the theory of evolution if a moth with a long proboscis was not found on Madagascar.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) Now consider this example: If Complexity of the Universe, then Intelligent Design. Observe: Complexity of the Universe. Therefore: Intelligent Design. This syllogism is making an argument for intelligent design based upon the observation of complexity (i.e., sometimes “precision” rather than “complexity” is used).

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) The syllogism itself is logical. Also, the argument can be specified so as to meet three of the requirements of science: 1.the elements of the premise (i.e., complexity or precision) are observable, 2.it can state conclusions within a margin of error, 3.it can test implied hypotheses in null form.

Science and Intelligent Design 6.Back to Syllogisms (Continued) Intelligent design, however, cannot meet the fourth requirement of science because no possible evidence can be observed that would refute the presence of an intelligent designer. Thus, intelligent design can seem logical, and sound like science, but it can never meet all the requirements of science.

Science and Intelligent Design 7.The Debate Some argue that science should include non- falsifiable assumptions. They seek to redefine science as something different than that accepted by the community of scholars. This attempt at logic fails because one simply redefines science to fit the assumptions of intelligent design such that intelligent design then becomes “science.”

Science and Intelligent Design 7.The Debate Some argue that because the practice of science includes considerations of religion, intelligent design is science. It is true that the practice of science is influenced by religion (and economics, culture, politics, etc.). Still, science insists that hypotheses in principle be falsifiable. Intelligent design can never meet this requirement.

Science and Intelligent Design 8.Conclusions Science is not “better” than intelligent design because it requires falsifiable hypotheses; it simply is a different form of knowing. Intelligent design might be the correct explanation of the origins of the universe and the human species. It is not science, however, because it cannot be falsified.

Science and Intelligent Design 8.Conclusions Intelligent Design and other forms of the same argument, such as Creationism, are not diminished because they are not science. And science is not diminished because it cannot know Absolute Truth. Each epistemology adds something to the human quest for understanding and knowledge.

Science and Intelligent Design 8.Conclusions (Continued) Despite its limitations, science can accumulate much knowledge and make accurate predictions about phenomena. So, although scientific theories can never claim to know reality, they can make highly useful inferences about reality for purposes of improving human well being.