In the grand tradition of "Inherit the Wind" comes The Rule, a fictional dramatization of a pro-ID high school biology teacher who is accused of "treason" and "blasphemy" against science, by the "blunt... but crafty" Dr. Trent, an anthropologist. (The use of those words alone was enough to send this reader into spasms of laughter.)
There's little need to debunk the assertions--they're the standard ID arguments dressed up in purple prose--but the good-versus-evil religious motif is fairly strong. As the stage directions put it,
The arrangement should have the effect of visibly wedging Nate Plummer between the two forces (Trent and the ACLU) that are bent on his destruction.
And yet the whole point of the play is to prove that ID isn't about religion. Irony, anyone?
[Adobe Acrobat Reader required]
9 comments:
I'm afraid I don't see the irony.
Let's clarify, then.
The whole point the play wants us to consider is that ID is a separate beast from religion (particularly Christianity); the main character asserts:
"Religion? I'm not teaching religion. I'm teaching biology!... I am not a religious activist."
But in employing the very language of Johnson, the Discovery Institute, et.al., the play reveals its pro-religious slant--that discussion of "The Rule" (methodological naturalism) really *is* a foot in the door--or, as the school board attorney puts it, "opening Pandora's Box." (It's not just about competing theories of origins--no one is calling for equal time for discussions of panspermia or Lamarckianism.)
Hence, irony: the "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."
Thanks!
1) I'll make no defense of it's quality--yikes.
2) I'm not sure "the whole point" the play "wants us to consider" is that ID is not religion.
3) "Opening Pandora's box" is like "getting a foot in the door?" Huh?
4) Maybe the "religious language" is designed to show the scientific establishment's dogmatic attitude toward competing theories. This seems (given the literature you mentioned, and the actual play) the more likely case. Their saying, in other words, "Look, we want to do science. We ARE doing science. Yet you treat methodological naturalism like an unassailable dogma. That seems more religious than scientific." Seems to make more sense of the play, doesn't it?
(2)
Considering that the play is preaching to the proverbial choir, I agree somewhat--but the consistent "it's not religion, it's biology" emphasis is central to the thesis (methodological naturalism is dogma and unfair to "science").
(3) "Opening Pandora's box" is like "getting a foot in the door?" Huh? Mixing metaphors, on my part. The Wedge Strategy utilizes foot-in-the-door techniques (witness the recent Minnesota flap), while the other idea--Pandora's box--refers specifically to the idea that once MN is revealed for what it is, and younguns call BS, Darwinism will self-destruct.
(4) "Maybe the "religious language" is designed to show the scientific establishment's dogmatic attitude toward competing theories."
There's a world of difference between "we want to do science" and "we ARE doing science." It's not just a matter of publication in peer-reviewed journals--it's the lack of a coherent research program, a testable hypothesis, etc., etc. that disallows ID claims of "doing science."
Besides, the reason I brought up other theories--panspermia, Lamarckianism, etc.--is to prove that science *isn't* rigid and dogmatic. It does, however, consistently weed out theories that don't add up, or modify them until they do. (Read Lynn Margulis' works for updates to mere "natural selection" that involve the subsuming of entire genomes as a form of speciation--the best example being the mitochondrion's inclusion into early cells.)
This is one of Margulis' most accessible works to date. Check it out and see that Darwinism--even neo-Darwinism--ain't dogma.
1)"it's the lack of a coherent research program, a testable hypothesis, etc., etc. that disallows ID claims of "doing science." "
The criticism of methodological naturalism doesn't depend upon ID being a mature research program. Everyone in ID admits its not. The criticism is that the scientific establishment won't even let it get off the ground because of their philosophical presuppositions. That seems dogmatic. My guess is that within 5 years ID will be doing enough work to secure federal funding.
2) "Besides, the reason I brought up other theories--panspermia, Lamarckianism, etc.--is to prove that science *isn't* rigid and dogmatic. It does, however, consistently weed out theories that don't add up, or modify them until they do."
Right. It's ID's claim that the scientific theory that will eventually be weeded out is Darwinian natural selection, if we could get past the philosophical presuppositions. The heart of the issue is really philosophical naturalism. It's dying as a viable alternative in philosophy--it will die eventually in science as well.
The criticism of methodological naturalism doesn't depend upon ID being a mature research program. Everyone in ID admits its not. The criticism is that the scientific establishment won't even let it get off the ground because of their philosophical presuppositions....Sounds like a conspiracy theory--naturalists ganging up on ID because they have an inherent allegiance to naturalism. Might be true for some--Lewontin comes to example--but when scientists (and evolutionists) the world over identify themselves as religious believers, how can the "philosophical naturalist" label be applied to them? It seems to set up a false dichotomy. Where would panentheism, for example, fit into the picture?
Is the ID position a God-of-the-Gaps theology? It is consistently posed that way--the (insert cellular function here) isn't possible by chance and mutation, ergo, God did it.
Since ID theorists consistently attempt to appropriate others' research for their purposes, i.e., citing papers, quoting books, etc., I find it hard to believe that "pure research" in the cause of ID would somehow be exorcised from the scientific community. What, though, *is* a working hypothesis of design, other than Behe's discredited "irreducible complexity," or Dembski's misuse of the NFL theorems?
Right. It's ID's claim that the scientific theory that will eventually be weeded out is Darwinian natural selection, if we could get past the philosophical presuppositions. The heart of the issue is really philosophical naturalism. It's dying as a viable alternative in philosophy--it will die eventually in science as well.Darwinian natural selection "weeded out?" Sounds Darwinian. Seriously, though, Darwinism is a rigorous, testable framework that has survived countless experiments, matches predictions, and fits with observations. As to the death of philosophical naturalism, I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment, but I'd love to be pointed in the directions of works that posit that claim. It sounds like the same gleeful pronouncements of the imminent demise of religion, 'way back in the days of the philosophes.
Long post. Blah. Appreciate the dialogue.
"....Sounds like a conspiracy theory--naturalists ganging up on ID because they have an inherent allegiance to naturalism. Might be true for some--Lewontin comes to example--but when scientists (and evolutionists) the world over identify themselves as religious believers, how can the "philosophical naturalist" label be applied to them? It seems to set up a false dichotomy. Where would panentheism, for example, fit into the picture?"
The question isn't necessarily one of the scientist's personal beliefs (sadly). Rather, any scientist who comes to work is supposed to adopt methodological naturalism (which is clearly reducible to philosophical naturalism) as a science. When "science" is defined in such a way as to preclude any intelligent causation, then any alernative theory can't get off the ground. But why should science be defined in that way? Why methodological naturalism?
"Is the ID position a God-of-the-Gaps theology? It is consistently posed that way--the (insert cellular function here) isn't possible by chance and mutation, ergo, God did it."
Good question, and avoiding this is often stated as the reason for methodological naturalism. However, the arguments for irreducible complexity and specified complexity don't depend on any one gap--rather, they just argue that no matter how much we know, there is a necessary explanatory gap. God might not be the direct cause of the complexity, but at some point the complexity can only be explained on a theistic hypothesis. The scientific alternative to "God the of the gaps" is always the appeal to ignorance--we don't know yet, but we will!--seems just as problematic, and in some fields downright impossible to overcome (see mind-body problems).
"Since ID theorists consistently attempt to appropriate others' research for their purposes, i.e., citing papers, quoting books, etc., I find it hard to believe that "pure research" in the cause of ID would somehow be exorcised from the scientific community. What, though, *is* a working hypothesis of design, other than Behe's discredited "irreducible complexity," or Dembski's misuse of the NFL theorems?"
Help me out: what is the "misuse of the NFL theorems"?
"Sounds Darwinian." : )
"Seriously, though, Darwinism is a rigorous, testable framework that has survived countless experiments, matches predictions, and fits with observations. As to the death of philosophical naturalism, I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment, but I'd love to be pointed in the directions of works that posit that claim. It sounds like the same gleeful pronouncements of the imminent demise of religion, 'way back in the days of the philosophes."
I don't doubt that it is, which is why guys like Behe accept significant portions of it. It's also why the big target is the philosophical and methodological naturalism--undercut that, and the strict Darwinian hypothesis at work now might be considerably revised. To quote Lewis, "Nature tends to answer the questions we ask of her." Of course, those questions are (like any question) philosophical.
It's not quite a "pronouncement"--more of a cry for help. See Quentin Smith's article which was published in Philo--here's the link:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy_of_naturalism.htm
Interestingly, in his first section he also highlights the fact that in philosophy, Christians used to leave their personal beliefs at home, and the same has been true of other disciplines. Christians quit doing it in philosophy, and began dominating the field. He notes that Behe had to publish biology articles in philosophy journals, because they drew on theistic resources, and science journals wouldn't take them as a result. The big question is, "Why should scientists leave their personal beliefs about the structure of the world at home, and not incorporate them into science, particularly if those beliefs are themselves rationally defensible on other grounds, as is theism?" ID is an instance of that happening, and if the field of philosophy is any indicator how successful as a research program that can be, then it's no wonder those who subscribe to philosophical naturalism are being so dogmatic.
Even longer post. Blah. I'm also enjoying it!
Since the lengthening of these posts mirrors the accelerating expansion of the universe, I'm going to call a brief moratorium, and respond in a full posting in a little while. There are more bones to be picked in this epistemological luau.
If you're bored, I'd suggest this article, about a possible new form of life: the nanobacterium.
Post a Comment