Opponents of ID often argue against ID on the basis that it is not science. Of course, the definition of science itself is disputable, and it is often disputed. This is largely a red herring, however, because it shifts the focus away from the merits of ID arguments to the classification of those arguments. As Thomas Nagel has written, “A purely semantic classification of a hypothesis or its denial as belonging or not to science is of limited interest to someone who wants to know whether the hypothesis is true or false.”[1]
While I think ID is a scientific conclusion, I do not wish to debate here whether ID properly qualifies as science, or whether it is better classified as religion/philosophy. The question I want to raise is how scientists would respond if it could be demonstrated that ID is both properly categorized as religion/philosophy and ID is true. Would scientists cease discussing certain subjects in science class? Would they stop discussing the origin of life or origin of species? In my estimation, this is doubtful. I think most would continue to offer naturalistic explanations for these objects because their definition of science requires them to. After all, if by definition alone science must provide naturalistic answers for all natural phenomena, then scientists must continue to offer naturalistic explanations for all phenomena—even phenomena ID would have proven do not have naturalistic explanations.
This exposes the lunacy of methodological naturalism: It requires scientists to offer a certain kind of explanation, even if it is not the right explanation. I contend that scientists must decide what they are more committed to: the principle of methodological naturalism, or truth itself. If they are more committed to methodological naturalism, then they need to make the public aware that scientific explanations aren’t necessarily true explanations. If they are more committed to truth, however, then they should stop defining science by methodological naturalism, and allow for the possibility that a designing intelligence is the cause of some natural phenomena if the evidence points to such. Once methodological naturalism no longer serves to demarcate science from non-science, there is no principled reason to exclude ID as a “scientific” theory.
___________________________________________________
[1]Thomas Nagel, “Public Education and Intelligent Design”, 195. Cf. Alvin Plantinga, “Whether ID Is Science Isn’t Semantics”; available from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3331.
Thinking to Believe 
January 5, 2011 at 7:32 am
Or, instead of postulating a designer (which I have no problem with,) let’s just ask naturalists to acknowledge that they don’t have the answer yet. The problem with naturalism isn’t that it only offers natural solutions, it is that it offers solutions for things it cannot (yet, perhaps), or skews the actual results to fit the naturalist presupposition. I don’t require them to admit a designer, just admit what they don’t know.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Paul,
Good point. That would be progress. Naturalists are guilty of offering explanations that fall woefully short of true explanatory power, simply because they feel the need to come up with some naturalistic hypothesis. I think the origin of life and consciousness are two good examples of this.
That said, the issue is not just the inadequacy of naturalistic theories for some phenemonon, but the fact that the evidence positively points to the involvement of a designing intelligence. If that’s where the evidence points, then that’s what we should accept.
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Jason,
The definition of “scientific theory” was redefined by the NAS to exclude theories that have been falsified. Thus, old theories are no longer science but “used to be science.” The sole reason for this change, as best as I can tell, is to exclude ID as science by allowing scientists to claim that it’s falsified and to prevent IDers from appealing to older scientific theories that would support them.
What if “junk DNA” were found to contain a clear coded message from an intelligent designer that states his identity and claims he created all earthly life? I suspect scientists would recognize the message and admit the possibility.
Even now, many scientists admit that it’s possible life appeared from another planet (eg, panspermia) but they claim that if an intelligent designer created earthly life, it would have evolved from a lower life form.
I have an idea to challenge current laws preventing “religion” from being taught in school. There is a minority of teachers and professors who believe that there is no historical Jesus. I’d like to see a state pass a law stating that teachers must teach: (a) there was a historical Jesus and (b) Israel existed in some form two thousands years ago. The bill should state that the legislature is passing the bill with the purpose of advancing religion (namely Christianity), and that the primary effect of the bill will be to advance religion. (After all, whether there is a historical Jesus and Israel existed 2,000 years ago makes little difference to anything other than the truth of Christianity.)
If this bill were passed, you’d have a law where it’s requiring teachers to teach something about religion that nearly everybody regards as historically true, yet it fails the Lemon test. If the courts apply the law in good faith, the law will be found unconstitutional. This would test whether the courts are ruling honestly or simply twisting the constitution to prevent fair debate. My prediction: they’d change the Lemon test rather than invalidate a law teaching historical truth.
Arthur
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 10:32 am
Arthur
I am not familiar with the history of NAS’s definition, but if they have done what you say they have done, I would have to express both shock and disdain. It’s a tad bit self-serving to redefine a discipline so as to rule out your opponents! But worse than that, clearly it does not follow that just because a scientific theory has been falsified that it is no longer “scientific.” Is there any other field in which a falsified theory within that field is no longer considered part of that field? When a philosophical theory is falsified, would anyone suggest the idea ceases to be a philosophical idea? Rubbish.
As for your constitutional test, I think the SCOTUS would strike the law down using Lemon. By striking down the law, SCOTUS would not be prohibiting any teacher from teaching on these subjects, but merely make it optional as it would have been prior to the law’s passage.
Jason
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Jason,
It’s true that striking down the law wouldn’t prevent anybody from teaching anything. But I doubt the courts would strike down a law that teaches truth simply because its primary purpose is to advance religion.
Further, if the law is a violation of church and state, then so is any government action (eg, the individual acts of a public school teacher). If the teacher teaches that Israel existed 2000 years ago, and teaching that has the primary effect of advancing religion, it runs afoul of Lemon and it’s unconstitutional.
Arthur
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Arthur,
I guess we just see it differently. I don’t think SCOTUS would care about whether the ideas being taught are true or not; they would only care that the law was religiously motivated. I think the only way they might be willing to jettison Lemon is if overturning the law in question would prohibit teachers from speaking of these historical facts in the classroom, which SCOTUS would not want to see happen because they recognize that the facts in question are not inherently religious and have a secular purpose.
I don’t see how teaching that Israel existed as a nation has the primary effect of advancing religion. The primary effect is teaching students about world history.
Jason
Jason
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I’m kinda meh in response to this article. Naturalistic methodology, empirical studies hold more weight in practical terms when trying to describe phenomena then transcendentalism, theism, mysticism with a cause-and-effect type of framework to work within rather than X being happened to spoof up a series of Y events with no coherence whatsoever, although I allow the possibility for X being to assist, it may not necessarily follow that X must still exist in order for Y events to occur.
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 11:43 am
Sonic Vangall,
Who says naturalistic explanations hold more weight? Why should they be preferred, particularly in cases in which the evidence points toward a transcendental/theistic explanation and away from a naturalistic explanation?
As for X causing Y, I agree that just establishing that X caused Y does not mean that X still exists after Y has been brought into being. X could have been expunged during the causal process. But when it comes to intelligent design, the question is not whether a designer exists today, but whether there is evidence in the past for such a designer, and his/her/it’s involvement in the cosmos.
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Hey! I understand this is kind of off-topic but I
needed to ask. Does building a well-established website such as yours require a
lot of work? I am brand new to blogging but I do write in
my diary everyday. I’d like to start a blog so I can share my personal experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any recommendations or tips for brand new aspiring bloggers. Appreciate it!
LikeLike