Science and Intelligent Design
Science and Intelligent Design
1. Introduction
• This presentation describes:
1. the logic of science in relation to ontology
(i.e. the study of reality),
2. the limitations of science as a method of
investigating reality,
3. how science addresses these limitations to
make inferences about reality,
4. differences between science and intelligent
design as alternative approaches to
understanding reality.
Science and Intelligent Design
1. Introduction (Continued)
• To distinguish between science and intelligent
design the presentation will describe science
and intelligent design and the differences
between these approaches to understanding
reality (or if you will, Absolute Truth).
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology
• Ontology refers to inquiries about reality—or
Absolute Truth.
• Science cannot know reality because reality
cannot be observed. Thus, science can never
know the Absolute Truth.
• Science, must limit itself to investigations of
observable phenomena to make inferences
about reality.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• Science makes inferences about reality within
the context of theories—empirically falsifiable
sets of abstract statements about reality.
That is:
• Theories make statements about reality.
• These statements use abstract concepts—
ones that can refer to a broad range of
observable phenomena.
• Theories can be falsified by observation.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• Because science investigates only observable
phenomena, it can never verify a theory, but
only find reasons to infer support for it.
• Thus, while one might observe a relationship
that is predicted by a theory, the theory itself
can never be proven as correct.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• A common misconception about science is that
it attempts to know Absolute Truth, that it seeks
ultimate cause.
• Science does not attempt to know Absolute
Truth. Rather, it attempts to provide an
explanation of phenomena, an explanation that
can be falsified by observation.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• Consider, for example, the theory of evolution.
While it is possible to observe a relationship
between the physical environment and animal
physiology, there is no attempt to claim that
evolution represents Absolute Truth because it
is impossible to prove that this relationship
occurs due to evolution.
• Instead, one would infer support for the theory
of evolution by observing relationships
predicted by the theory.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• The procedure used in science to infer support
for a theory is the attempt to falsify null
hypotheses—ones that contradict the theory.
• For example, if scientists falsify the null
hypothesis that there is no relationship
between physical environment and animal
physiology, then they assert that they have
found support for the theory of evolution.
Science and Intelligent Design
2. Ontology (Continued)
• Scientists rely upon testing null hypotheses to
avoid making illogical statements about reality.
• One example of a logical fallacy is affirming the
consequent.
• The Fallacy Files provides an excellent
typology of logical fallacies.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent
• Consider this series of statements (shown in
the format of a syllogism):
1. Premise: If p, then q.
2. Observation: q.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, p.
• Note the logical fallacy: q might occur for other
reasons than p. So, if we infer p from
observing q, then we have made a logical
fallacy.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• For example:
1. If it’s raining (p), then the streets are wet (q).
2. The streets are wet (q).
3. Therefore, it must be raining (p).
• The streets might be wet, however, because:
• It was raining, but is no longer raining.
• The streets were just cleaned.
• Snow is melting.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• To avoid affirming the consequent, statements
in science are written as hypotheses.
• Hypotheses have two forms:
• the research hypothesis.
• the null hypothesis.
• The research hypothesis is the statement
about reality:
• There is a relationship between x and y.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• The null hypothesis is the counter argument to
this statement:
• There is no relationship between x and y.
• Two essential elements of this logic are:
1. One tests the hypothesis of no relationship.
2. Both elements of the tested hypothesis
must be observable.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• Consider this example:
• The Angræcum sesquipedale is an orchid
in Madagascar with a thinly shaped nectary
of about 11-12 inches in length.
• Upon observing this orchid, Charles
Darwin, based upon the theory of evolution,
made a startling statement: There must be
a moth with a proboscis of 11-12 inches!
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• No such creature had ever been seen or even
imagined.
• So, Darwin was making a truly outlandish
prediction!
• (Twenty-one years after Darwin’s death, such a
moth was found in Madagascar.)
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• To illustrate the fallacy of making deterministic
statements about ultimate cause, let’s place
Darwin’s prediction within the format of a
syllogism (in a very abbreviated form):
1. Premise: If evolution, then moth with long
proboscis.
2. Observation: moth with long proboscis.
3. Conclusion: evolution.
Science and Intelligent Design
3. Affirming the Consequent (Continued)
• You can see the logical fallacy. We have
affirmed the consequent (moth with long
proboscis) to conclude that an unobservable
cause (evolution) is valid.
• Because there might be other explanations for
a moth with a long proboscis, we need to avoid
affirming the consequent when investigating
reality.
Science and Intelligent Design
4. The Research and Null Hypotheses
• The solution is to use the format of the
research and null hypotheses.
• What Darwin was saying, to use the format of
the research hypothesis (Ha), is:
There is a relationship between physical
environment and animal physiology.
or: The orchid (environment) must have a moth
that fits it and can pollinate it (physiology).
Science and Intelligent Design
4. The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued)
• To test this research hypothesis, however,
would affirm the consequent.
• Therefore, scientists test the null hypothesis.
• The null hypothesis (Ho) is a statement that
asserts no relationship between two variables.
There is no relationship between physical
environment and animal physiology.
Science and Intelligent Design
4. The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued)
• If the null hypothesis is rejected—if there
appears to be a relationship between physical
environment and animal physiology—then the
scientist infers support for the research
hypothesis that there is a relationship between
physical environment and animal physiology.
• If the null hypothesis is not rejected, then the
research hypothesis is falsified; it is shown to
be false.
Science and Intelligent Design
4. The Research and Null Hypotheses (Continued)
• Recognize that because science cannot verify
an hypothesis, is it also impossible to verify the
falsification of an hypothesis.
• Science therefore must rely upon probabilistic
statements rather than deterministic ones.
• Science therefore tests hypotheses within a
margin of error, which is called the Type-I error.
The social sciences typically use a margin of
error equal to 5%.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology
• We have described four requirements for an
epistemology to be defined as science:
1. Phenomena of interest must be observable,
2. Hypotheses must be tested in the null form,
3. Conclusions are stated as probabilistic—
within a margin of error.
4. The scientist must specify conditions under
which the theory being tested can be
falsified.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• The implications of these requirements are that
science can never confirm that a theory
accurately represents reality, even if no
counter-examples to the theory are ever found.
• Observed relationships might be the result
of the assertions of the theory.
• Or, they might occur for some other reason.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• For example, science can never confirm that
evolution is the ultimate cause of the
relationship between physical environment and
animal physiology, even if no counter-examples
are ever found.
• The relationship might be the result of
evolution.
• Or, it might be the result of some other cause,
such as intelligent design, for example.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• Intelligent design is the claim that "certain
features of the universe and of living things are
best explained by an intelligent cause, not an
undirected process such as natural selection."
• It is a modern form of the traditional teleological
argument for the existence of God, modified to
avoid specifying the nature or identity of the
designer.
Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• Proponents of intelligent design, most of whom
are associated with the Discovery Institute,
believe the designer to be God.
• Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a
scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally
redefine science to accept supernatural
explanations.
Source: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• Proponents of intelligent design state, for
example, that because the universe is so
complex, it must have been formed by an
intelligent designer.
• A similar argument of intelligent design states
that because celestial bodies move in very
precise patterns in relation to one another, this
precision of physics implies an intelligent
designer.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• Recall, however, that a requirement of science
is that theories must be capable of being
falsified by observing counter-examples.
• When Darwin predicted the existence of a moth
with a proboscis of 11-12 inches in length, for
example, he was willing to risk his theory on
the outcome of finding this moth.
Science and Intelligent Design
5. Back to Ontology (Continued)
• Explanations that rely upon an undeniable
cause cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot
be considered as science.
• Because there is no possibility of refuting the
existence of an intelligent designer, the
argument of intelligent design represents an
example of a teleological fallacy: it assumes
intelligent design to confirm intelligent design.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms
• Earlier in this presentation, we discussed the
fallacy of affirming the consequent.
• Consider this syllogism:
• Premise: If Intelligent Design, then
Complexity of the Universe.
• Observation: Complexity of the Universe.
• Conclusion: Then Intelligent Design.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms
• You can see the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
• Observing the complexity of the universe does
not logically lead one to infer intelligent design,
unless one a priori assumes intelligent design.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms
• Now, consider this correct form of a syllogism:
• Premise: If A, then B.
• Observation: A.
• Conclusion: Then B.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
For example:
• Premise: If Congruence (between physical
environment and animal physiology), then
Evolution.
• Observation: Congruence.
• Conclusion: Evolution.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
• This syllogism is making an argument for the
theory of evolution based upon the observation
of congruence between physical environment
and animal physiology.
• Although the syllogism itself is logical, the
argument entailed by it cannot be science
unless it meets these requirements.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
The requirements of science demand that:
1. the elements of the premise (i.e., physical
environment and animal physiology) must
be observable,
2. hypothesis implied by the syllogism must
be tested in their null form,
3. conclusions must be made within a margin
of error (i.e., the Type-I error),
4. scientists must provide examples of how
the theory of evolution can be falsified.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
The theory of evolution meets these requirements:
1. the elements are observable,
2. hypotheses are tested in their null form,
3. conclusions are made within a margin of
error,
4. scientists provide examples of how
conclusions can be falsified. For example,
Darwin was willing to falsify the theory of
evolution if a moth with a long proboscis
was not found on Madagascar.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
Now consider this example:
• If Complexity of the Universe, then Intelligent
Design.
• Observe: Complexity of the Universe.
• Therefore: Intelligent Design.
This syllogism is making an argument for
intelligent design based upon the observation
of complexity (i.e., sometimes “precision” rather
than “complexity” is used).
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
• The syllogism itself is logical.
• Also, the argument can be specified so as to
meet three of the requirements of science:
1. the elements of the premise (i.e.,
complexity or precision) are observable,
2. it can state conclusions within a margin of
error,
3. it can test implied hypotheses in null form.
Science and Intelligent Design
6. Back to Syllogisms (Continued)
• Intelligent design, however, cannot meet the
fourth requirement of science because no
possible evidence can be observed that would
refute the presence of an intelligent designer.
• Thus, intelligent design can seem logical, and
sound like science, but it can never meet all the
requirements of science.
Science and Intelligent Design
7. The Debate
• Some argue that science should include nonfalsifiable assumptions. They seek to redefine
science as something different than that
accepted by the community of scholars.
• This attempt at logic fails because one simply
redefines science to fit the assumptions of
intelligent design such that intelligent design
then becomes “science.”
Science and Intelligent Design
7. The Debate
• Some argue that because the practice of
science includes considerations of religion,
intelligent design is science.
• It is true that the practice of science is
influenced by religion (and economics, culture,
politics, etc.). Still, science insists that
hypotheses in principle be falsifiable.
Intelligent design can never meet this
requirement.
Science and Intelligent Design
8. Conclusions
• Science is not “better” than intelligent design
because it requires falsifiable hypotheses; it
simply is a different form of knowing.
• Intelligent design might be the correct
explanation of the origins of the universe and
the human species. It is not science, however,
because it cannot be falsified.
Science and Intelligent Design
8. Conclusions
• Intelligent Design and other forms of the same
argument, such as Creationism, are not
diminished because they are not science.
• And science is not diminished because it
cannot know Absolute Truth.
• Each epistemology adds something to the
human quest for understanding and
knowledge.
Science and Intelligent Design
8. Conclusions (Continued)
• Despite its limitations, science can accumulate
much knowledge and make accurate
predictions about phenomena.
• So, although scientific theories can never claim
to know reality, they can make highly useful
inferences about reality for purposes of
improving human well being.