But Carmona's post takes us an even more round-about way, with his 'we could have done it better' comment. On the front end, how is that we necessarily think that we could do a better job than a blind watchmaker; and why should we think that we could not do as well as some intelligent designer? I note that genetic algorithms employ a randomization (so 'mutation') and selection approach to design of human artifacts out of a belief that a 'blind watchmaker' approach can do better design (or arrive at design more cost-effectively) than can direct human design. On the other hand, human designs are often good, perhaps more intelligent than some hypothesized 'intelligent designer.' For example, whether arrived at by a blind watchmaker or some IDer, the vertebrate eye does not reflect good design, and we rightly think that we could have done it better (and that other eyes in nature in fact exemplify better design).

At the other end, are policies of our design inherently bad? Are attempts to improve human rights around the world flawed because they use our designs? Must we await revelation by some 'intelligent designer' before attempting to reform our institutions?

As a final note, even if a scientific findings were to have a negative effect on someone's ethical outlook, should scientific knowledge be censored, and nonscientific ideology put in its place, to prevent such a negative effect? If not, then such effects cannot be employed as criteria for accepting ideas as scientific. If so, then it doesn't matter -- because at that point we will have abandoned science in any case.

...

Professor Okimoto (http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/455.htm) argues: "ID isn't part of science because they can't bring their ideas up to a minimum standard that would allow science to evaluate their ideas. From past experience with other ID claims science is justified in saying that this ID claim will also fail. We can't verify if it is a failure or not until we can test the idea. As long as ID proponents can't come up with any testable assertions science can't comment on the validity of the idea. The fact that they can't come up with any testable assertions or think of any utility for their ideas should tell anyone that ID is more likely a crock than a valid hypothesis." I don't disagree with Professor Okimoto, but think that more needs be said. Much of the problem is with the attitude of the ID advocates: a failure to pose testable propositions to which they will stick argument that no designer need be identified nor designer characteristics stated, a failure to even appreciate what would make for scientific utility, a focus not on the strengths of their own case but rather on claimed weaknesses of existing science (allied with the explicit or implied argument that ID should win by default if a weakness is demonstrated in accepted science), and so on.

For example, Behe and others have gone through several iterations of stating a biological structure to represent irreducible complexity (or to be IC in a way not reachable by random mutation combined with selection), being shown wrong, and retreating to new examples. The bacterial flagellum is but the latest such structure, currently being severely critiqued. One wonders what structure will be retreated to next time. Likewise, scientific hypotheses pose interesting questions that can lead to further interesting questions, whether a given hypothesis is falsified or not. ID advocates seem to think the only utility is in poking holes in an opponent's argument, not in suggesting useful avenues for science to explore. I am not sure how we could test the assertion that the bacterial flagellum could only have come about through intelligent design. More important, where could that assertion lead us? Does it suggest how the flagellum might have been designed? Does it suggest what characteristics might be revealed about the designer, or how evidence of the designer might be sought? The only utility I can see might be the focusing of scientific attention on the topic; but any such attention will likely be followed up by traditional scientific methods, not by ID-aided methodology. In short, what is the value added by ID?

-- James Swan, Professor, Wichita State University (posted 2/14, 3:10 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.