ID: Philosophy or Science (Long Version)

The endless debate on evolution and/or intelligent design being taught in schools as part of science curriculum once again pulled me into some long discussions on the topic and in an attempt to organize my own thoughts and views on the subject, I wrote the following.  Unlike some of my other posts here I haven't shortened it down to a few paragraphs.  I figure I've been good enough to finally post at least one long post!  In this case it got quite a few Kudos from some anti-evolutionists who absolutely disagree with me on ID and creationist views over at RedState, so I figured I'd share here to get some feed back from folks who know I'm one of those derned drity shaven apes (in my opinion) or atheist, if you prefer:

Definintions:

In such discussions it seems to help to get the potential semantical disagreements out of the way first, otherwise one finds themselves into the frustrating circular discussions that keep coming right back to what a word or words mean... or in this case which meaning of the word is being used.

I'll be using the following definitions:

Philosophy:

2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Science:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Scientific Method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Evolution:

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Intelligent Design:

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Theory:

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

All definitions I'm using here are from Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary as they are likely to be both generally accepted, easily verified, and of course scrutinized if need be.

Theories in Philosophy and Science:

Both philosophy and science have their theories. Some theories are used by both philosophers and scientists without much conflict at all while others create contradictions from one school of thought to another. The bigger difference is in the way such theories are vetted through either school of thought. Where philosophers tend to rely on speculative and logical processes of scrutinizing theories, scientists use the scientific method based on what we can observe and test in a manner that is repeatable and open to scrutiny.

To put it simply, a philosophical theory is only as good as its reasoning whereas a scientific theory is only as good as it fits observations throughout time.

A good analogy would be between a political philosophy and political science. The former stands on its reasoning and logic and will often be accepted with little to no available proof. Political science deals with how such theories play out in the real world with observable data such as voting results, polling results, criminal statistics, etc.

Evolution:

Like many other theories, evolution hypothesizes on something much larger than what can generally be observed or tested. As with the problem with being able to go back in time to observe the Big Bang or any means to replicate it, we cannot go back in time and observe if or how one species mutated over generations to become new species.

Doesn't this put all theories, including ID, on par with these generally accepted, so-called "scientific" theories?

The answer is, of course, yes!

Before evolution fans start grabbing their pitchforks and torches... yeah you, I see the torch... put it away. Thanks.

Before anyone gets too upset or happy over evolution and ID being put on par with one another, a pesky problem must be addressed, this is at the very beginning of the scientific process... which has a very systematic way of scrutinizing any theory before it is ever recognized as having any legitimacy. Without at least some observations that seem to fit the theory the theory is on par with a Lord Xenu explanation. The big moment for a scientific theory is when observations don't just fit the theory, but when the theory accurately predicts observations we haven't even made yet. Relativity being one of the greatest examples.

The more observations and tests that seem to confirm the theory, the far more accepted the theory becomes, even if there are parts of the theory that may or may not ever be confirmed. It's in the parts that haven't been confirmed that exists the possibility that further scrutiny could blow the whole theory out of the water or require modifications to it. This has happened time and time again with theories dealing with subatomic structure/energy, probably most notably with the black body observations that defied current theories... eventually giving birth to quantum theory.

Evolution theories have endured through similar observations, sticking points, corrections, etc. Not because every aspect has been vetted yet, but because our observations have generally fit within it. While scientists, philosophers, and others will scrutinize the yet unconfirmed portions of the theory and further scrutinize any observations that appear to conflict with the theory, that is all part of the scientific process.

As with many theories, finding holes in it typically necessitates adapting the theory or making the theory more comprehensive. It's rarely as dramatic as when the theory of Ether got tossed which got so blown full of holes to be almost completely relegated to the trash bin of scientific understanding.

While many young earth scientists believe there is ample evidence to do the same with Evolution, their conflict isn't just with evolutionists, whose theories depend on much larger time frames, but also geologists whose theories often require even longer time frames, astronomers with even longer time frames than them... right down to chemists and physicists with various theories with long time frames being needed for the substances we find on earth, space, etc.

Worse their proof tends to rely on observations that are in conflict with other observations, not simply the theory itself. With the development of quantum theory and the death knell of the theory of Ether as a medium for radiation in empty space... the observations made did not contradict other observations, but instead they merely showed the theory itself did not fit for all observations. It's one thing to say a theory isn't comprehensive enough or isn't an accurate description of how things work... it is a whole other ballgame to contradict the litany of prior observations themselves.

One example of this mentioned in my discussions was the alleged set of human footprints near dinosaur footprints in a highly weathered area of a dinosaur park. This of course would be a serious discovery if anyone could actually verify this to be the case, something the weathering prevented. Further it contradicts all other observations, outside of confirmed hoaxes, on top of being unverifiable. Unfortunately this particular example is typical of young earth "evidence" and as such most scientists pushing it come off more like conspiracy theorists than anyone credible. There are some out there who attempt to observe and test phenomenon that may back their theory who do not rely on such weak evidence as incontrovertible substantiation of the theory.

In my mind they're just as bad as scientists who push the yet unconfirmed and untested portions of any scientific theory as beyond scrutiny because it successfully explains other observations. Such an arrogant view of science comes closer to concepts of faith and religion most such proponents claim to despise as ignorant. Science, as a rule, demands scrutiny and doubt, especially of that which cannot be confirmed through observation... even within longstanding theories.

Intelligent Design:

As a philosophical theory, ID stands as a fairly credible and worthwhile topic. It can be argued in various ways and applications and with varying degrees of reliance on speculation versus logical argumentation. Similarly many scientific and even religious concepts can find a welcome home in the endless philosophical debates of our time.

But the big question here is whether or not it could also fit into a science curriculum. It's a theory that has some popularity in our society, but science isn't supposed to be about popularity (as much as many politicians seem to think otherwise on almost every issue). Science curriculum are based on theories that have had at least some confirmation through scientific testing. The exception to the rule seems to be advanced college courses specializing in topics where research is done towards confirming such things. And even then such research is based on observable phenomenon.

The central premise of ID is that everything was created by a designing intelligence... so how does one confirm that? In the realm of scientific testing, any observation/testing that can be repeated by other scientists would be a good start. Short of finding a "Made in Higher Plane" label on quarks, it's a rather puzzling problem. Humanity has been attempting to prove or disprove a higher intelligence forever and a day it seems with little luck. Neither side has much to sell scientifically as neither faith or the absence of evidence constitutes confirmation in science.

With the Big Bang theory there is at least astronomical observations that can be made today that seem to confirm what the aftereffects of such an incident would seem to be. Some may treat it as gospel inappropriately when other more comprehensive theories and alternative theories are still being debated and scrutinized (Super String Theories) to explain observed phenomenon and mathematical issues associated with Big Bang theory. Those folks would be misrepresenting the current scientific understanding of the theory. But this hurts the case of people who want to show the Big Bang to be indisputable fact, not that it isn't a valid scientific theory with some confirmation of observable phenomenon that seems to fit the theory and more comprehensive theories that also include the Big Bang concept.

ID is still left with its philosophical and logical arguments that are worth consideration in philosophical studies, but nothing to observe or test that would bring it into the realm of scientific credibility.

People will cry "No! No! Look at this proof geological theories are wrong!" or "No! No! Look at this proof that evolution is wrong!" and never provide any scientific testing/data that has anything to do with showing whether or not intelligent designer is behind the creation of everything. Worse, their evidence tends to be of the conspiracy theory sort... it directly contradicts numerous other observations as opposed to being something that hasn't been tested or observed before that makes the theories they're contradicting look wrong. If scientists are supposed to take their word that their theory is sound based on a few shreds how are you supposed to convince them other theories are wrong in spite of far more overwhelming evidence? It just doesn't make any sense.

The Compromise:

Keep ID in philosophy courses. Keep evolution in science courses as long as it withstands scientific scrutiny.

ID is a philosophical theory attempting to understand the underlying truth behind the universe based on speculation and logic.

Evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain and predict how things work based on the things we can observe.

Keep them where they belong. If you want public schools to teach ID push to make philosophy required course for high school graduation.

Everybody wins.

The Rub:

With this compromise, people who want to teach young Earth theory as science will probably face an even bigger uphill challenge to do so. They will be fired for pushing the conspiracy theories that are supposed to make us believe that some intelligent designer set things in motion exactly right so that the light from distant objects was set into motion just right so that they seemed to be there long before the universe, according to them, even existed... instead of popping up over time.

For those who want to promote science as some sort of new religion, they're going to have to face the fact that philosophy is an important and complimentary part of human understanding and the contradictions between what may be and what may be observed can not, and will not ever necessarily negate the other.

People will either have to accept the fact that science is not religion and religion is not science, or they will have to accept that they will have to beat their heads against the brick wall of what both are.

And of course: The Disclaimer:

The writer is a liberal (classical, not neo-marxist, Democrat, etc) Constitutionalist with a strong belief in limited central government, federalism, and liberty... including a strong support of religious liberty to believe, not believe, and most importantly to do so as freely as possible. I don't need a nanny state overseeing how I live, let alone how or what I believe or choose not to believe.