OccamsSabre
Rookie
- Jan 2, 2014
- 21
- 3
- 1
With creationists pushing for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classroom these days, I think it may be helpful to consider not whether Intelligent Design is true or false, but rather, regardless of its truth, if it is science at all.
Scientific philosopher Karl Popper is credited with creating the notion of falsifiability. According to Popper,
Indeed, Popper's notion of falsifiability lie at the foundation of the scientific method and scientific theory. In order for a theory or hypothesis to be scientific, it must be able to be falsified. Otherwise, it cannot be tested, and thus cannot describe the world in a rational manner.
Given the argument of Intelligent Design, and ignoring the issue of whether it is true or not, is it possible to consider it scientific? Well, not really. Intelligent Design at its foundation is a religious philosophy based in faith. The notion of God creating the Earth and its creatures in their current form is one that doesn't have evidence but rather is believed with faith. If there were evidence, it would no longer be faith, but a rational belief. Furthermore, it is impossible to disprove Intelligent Design. Neither the existence of a God nor the notion of creation can be tested with current technology, nor could it ever be tested.
So if Intelligent Design is not scientific, this raises a question: Is the theory of evolution via natural selection falsifiable and scientific? I would say that it is. If the fossil record showed no change over time, or if no relationships could be found in DNA between species, or if animals failed to adapt to new surroundings, or if it was observed that there exists a barrier to stop changes from accumulating, or if an animal was observed being created spontaneously if any of these things were observed, if would nullify the theory of evolution. Further, these observations can be tested, and they have.
It is important to note that these tests do not confirm evolutionary theory. Scientific tests never confirm theories; they can only negate them. However, throughout the history of the scientific community, the theory of evolution has never been negated through any of these observations.
But regardless of either of these ideas' truth values, the fact remains that one is falsifiable while the other is not. And if Intelligent Design is falsifiable, then an experiment can be constructed to test for it. However, never once has this been demonstrated or even suggested. Plenty of people claim to be able to confirm Intelligent Design with evidence, but none have experiments that have the possibility of nullifying their ideas.
This should be the only argument that keeps Intelligent Design out of classrooms. Not whether it is true or false, but rather that regardless of its truth, it is not science. We would not teach the accounts of Exodus or Job in Biology 101, so we also should not teach the account of Genesis. Those teachings should stay in a church. "Teaching the controversy" is a flawed and dangerous argument that presupposes that both sides have equal merit when it is not true. Intelligent Design is most definitely not science.
Scientific philosopher Karl Popper is credited with creating the notion of falsifiability. According to Popper,
Indeed, Popper's notion of falsifiability lie at the foundation of the scientific method and scientific theory. In order for a theory or hypothesis to be scientific, it must be able to be falsified. Otherwise, it cannot be tested, and thus cannot describe the world in a rational manner.
Given the argument of Intelligent Design, and ignoring the issue of whether it is true or not, is it possible to consider it scientific? Well, not really. Intelligent Design at its foundation is a religious philosophy based in faith. The notion of God creating the Earth and its creatures in their current form is one that doesn't have evidence but rather is believed with faith. If there were evidence, it would no longer be faith, but a rational belief. Furthermore, it is impossible to disprove Intelligent Design. Neither the existence of a God nor the notion of creation can be tested with current technology, nor could it ever be tested.
So if Intelligent Design is not scientific, this raises a question: Is the theory of evolution via natural selection falsifiable and scientific? I would say that it is. If the fossil record showed no change over time, or if no relationships could be found in DNA between species, or if animals failed to adapt to new surroundings, or if it was observed that there exists a barrier to stop changes from accumulating, or if an animal was observed being created spontaneously if any of these things were observed, if would nullify the theory of evolution. Further, these observations can be tested, and they have.
It is important to note that these tests do not confirm evolutionary theory. Scientific tests never confirm theories; they can only negate them. However, throughout the history of the scientific community, the theory of evolution has never been negated through any of these observations.
But regardless of either of these ideas' truth values, the fact remains that one is falsifiable while the other is not. And if Intelligent Design is falsifiable, then an experiment can be constructed to test for it. However, never once has this been demonstrated or even suggested. Plenty of people claim to be able to confirm Intelligent Design with evidence, but none have experiments that have the possibility of nullifying their ideas.
This should be the only argument that keeps Intelligent Design out of classrooms. Not whether it is true or false, but rather that regardless of its truth, it is not science. We would not teach the accounts of Exodus or Job in Biology 101, so we also should not teach the account of Genesis. Those teachings should stay in a church. "Teaching the controversy" is a flawed and dangerous argument that presupposes that both sides have equal merit when it is not true. Intelligent Design is most definitely not science.
