Science's method rules out design
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
The methodology of science rules out even considering design.
Source
- Calvert, John H., Harris, William S. Teaching Origins Science In Public Schools: Memorandum & Opinion. Intelligent Design network. [1]
- Dembski, William, 2001. Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology?. [2]
Responses
- Since the fields of forensics and archaeology are both devoted entirely to questions related to design and designers, either (a) Dembski has an idiosyncratic private definition of "design" that he hasn't felt the need to let anyone else know about, or else (b) Dembski is just lying.
- As far as real science is concerned, the problem with the "design" concept that Intelligent Design proponents make noise about is that said concept is sufficiently vacuous/undefined as to offer no avenue for further investigation. Of course, there is a significant difference between the "design" concept used by real scientists (including anthropologists), and the "design" concept used by the boosters of Intelligent Design. A real scientist wants testable ideas to work with, hence a real scientist's concept of "design" is sufficiently well-defined that it is possible to tell, by empirical test and/or data gathering, whether that concept of "design" actually applies to the object of interest. In particular, a real scientist's concept of "design" has something to say about the nature of the "designer" (is it a human being?), the tools that the "designer" could have used (could the designer have used a stone axe?), etc etc. IDists, contrariwise, are content to assert a concept of "design" according to which an unknowable number of unknowable entities, at an unknowable time in the past, used unknowable tools and techniques to perform an unknowable number of unknowable actions in order to achieve an unknowable purpose.
- This claim appears to be based on an equivocation of the world natural. Often, in defending methodological naturalism, proponents argue that only "natural" causes may be studied by science. Intelligent Design theorists consider "natural" to be the opposite of intelligent, rather than the opposite of supernatural.
- This claim contradicts another Intelligent Design claim, that design is scientifically allowable in other fields (for example SETI researchers expect they can detect design).
- The methodology of science eventually rules out all that which is wrong, yes. Intelligent Design being wrong (or not even wrong according to some), it is ruled out.
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Straw Man (nothing in science rules out the concept of design itself)
- Exclusion (examples from archaeology and forensics are ignored)
External Links
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim [3]
- CreationWiki's comments [4]
References
- Dembski, William, 2002. Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID. [5]
Related claims
- Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design
- Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions
- Science is naturalistic
- Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation
- SETI researchers expect they can detect design
- Design requires a designer
