Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

Recommend (5) Comments (26)

Much has been written on the question of whether intelligent design is good science, or even whether it qualifies as science at all. In fact, many ID critics argue that some or another definition of the word “science” disqualifies the discussion on intelligent design before it ever gets started. They claim that science must adhere to a principle so-called “methodological naturalism.” According to this tidy dictum, scientists can believe whatever they want in their personal lives, but they must appeal only to purposeless causes when explaining nature. That means that anyone who dares speak of purpose or design within science or when discussing scientific evidence ceases to be a scientist. The background assumption of this claim is usually the belief that intelligent agency is “supernatural” and so unscientific (that does not follow, but I won’t pursue the point here.)

I must confess that I find this argument not only unpersuasive, but also a diversionary cul-de-sac. After all, the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition of science. What everyone wants to know is if there is evidence of design in nature, which is presumably the object of scientific study. Natural science is committed to finding out what nature is like. Why would anyone think we can do that with a semantic debate about the meaning of a word?

But that response might seem to concede natural science to the materialists, so I’ll say a little more. A great deal of time and ink has been spilled in recent decades over the definition of science. And still more time, ink, and rancor has been spilled trying to show that intelligent design either is or is not properly within the jurisdiction of science. It’s the sort of debate that philosophers relish, but that most educated people are too busy to follow.

Attempts to Define Intelligent Design out of Science Fail

The results of these debates, fortunately, are easy to summarize. First, overly strict definitions of science fail to capture actual scientific practice and are sometimes self-contradictory to boot. Second, any non-arbitrary definition of science broad enough to encompass not only diverse scientific disciplines, but also the history of science itself, is broad enough to accommodate the possibility of intelligent design. And third, any non-arbitrary definition of science narrow enough to prohibit questions of design manages to rule out a lot of other, uncontroversial scientific practices as well.  Methodological naturalism, for instance, would exclude most of the founders of modern science, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. That should strike you as fishy.

Scientists Should Follow the Evidence

But maybe you think I’m a partisan who can’t be trusted to summarize the debate fairly. OK. But the basic, common sense point is still the same: If we’re interested in what nature is really like, and we think science should be the careful, systematic study of nature and its properties, then a natural scientist should be open to observational evidence, wherever it leads. Either the universe provides evidence of design or it doesn’t. Many scientists, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg, argue that it doesn’t. But if the universe can provide evidence against design, then, at least in principle, it can provide evidence for design. The intellectually honest way to resolve the dispute, then, is to go out and look for the evidence. As long as a theory can be put in empirical harm’s way (as philosopher Del Ratzsch puts it), then it ought not to be ruled out of the bounds of “science” on the basis of an ad hoc definition, or even on the basis of a really sophisticated definition, derived from a multi-year, cross-disciplinary study funded by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.

What if there is evidence of design but scientists are not allowed to consider it? If a definition of science conflicts with the scientific evidence, should we go with the definition or the evidence? (hat tip to Phil Johnson for originally framing this question)

To ask the question is to answer it. Scientia means knowledge. Natural science should be the search for knowledge of the natural world. If we are properly scientific, then, we will seek to be open to the natural world, not decide beforehand what it’s allowed to reveal.

One Requirement: You Have to Be Open-Minded

OK. But some have argued that you have to presuppose a theistic worldview in order to consider evidence of design. So it depends on a parochial religious outlook that is inimical to science. Or, at the very least, the evidence is too theory-laden to persuade anyone but the true believers. This is incorrect. To consider evidence of intelligent design, you must simply be willing to have a properly scientific attitude, that is, you must be willing to focus on the evidence and to allow that evidence for intelligent design is possible. You have to be willing to consider whether something in nature might best be explained in terms of intelligent agency.

We’re talking about the publicly available evidence of nature, not private revelations. To look for evidence of intelligent design, you don’t need to assume much of anything about the nature of God, virgin births, flying carpets, the meaning of the creation days in Genesis 1, or anything like that. You don’t have to assume that any particular argument or piece of evidence favors intelligent design. Honest but open agnosticism is all you need to get started. You just have to be open-minded enough to consider this question: Is there evidence in nature for intelligent design? If you’re willing to consider that possibility, read on.