Watered-down ID

Andy Smarick wrote a blurb in National Review titled "Intelligent Discussion" bemoaning the recent defeats to the teaching of ID in the legislature. His thesis is that a watered down version of ID that ruffles fewer feathers (pays lip service to evolution, doesn't make ridiculous and easily disprovable claims like a young Earth) would have received a better reception from the courts and the scientific community.

He proceeds to describe his arguments in favor of the teaching of ID, claiming that "speculation" and the introduction of non-scientific theories in science classes are well established practices, consistent with the "principles of public education". Many examples follow.

Finally, he ends up saying that even if we disregard all these arguments, there is still an argument to be made for introducing morality into science, and ID does this.

I sent him a response, which is pasted below (pasted in blue text).

Your arguments show a lack of understanding of science.

Science is the study of natural phenomena. It's based on certain assumptions about the nature of reality - that entities behave according to their natures, that they are constrained by natural laws, by cause and effect. Your God is outside these laws. He is not subject to, or the subject of science.

If science ever does come across an "intelligent designer" it will immediately try to explain the designer in natural terms. The designer must be subject to the same laws as we are, and is simply a more advanced scientist. We can beat him at his own game, if we advance our science far enough. If he is not subject to the same laws, then he is God, and science has nothing to say about him because the scientific method does not apply to him, beacause he breaks the assumptions that science is based on.

This is why ID does not belong in the science class. It does not provide "valuable insight", that is, it does not provide scientific insight, regardless of value.

Neither does ID plug any holes in science. This talk of "complexity" and how it came to be is silly. Science is all about reducing complexity - finding simple explanations that boil down mountains of observations and data into a sparse, elegant explanation.

Newton saw that apples fall. So do oranges, pears, grapefruit, feathers, rain, lots of other stuff. To add complication to complication, stuff way up there in the sky like planets and moons appears to fall too, but in a different, more "complex" way. Newton reduced all this complexity to a simple law, which explains why all these very different objects behave the way they do. No need for a designer, the complexity is gone.

Science is full of examples like this. Every one of us starts off as a single cell, the zygote. This cell multiplies into the billions and billions of others that make up our bodies. Somehow all these cells know where to end up -- the cells at the tip of my finger know that's where they're supposed to be, and not in my liver. They know what they're supposed to be doing -- my finger cells don't try to produce digestive enzymes and my liver cells don't try to build an epidermis. Yet all these cells came from one cell, and all this information about the different cells in my present body, where they're supposed to be, what they're supposed to do, was crammed into that single cell. How could this be? There isn't enough DNA there to carry all this information.

The ID-type explanation would posit an intelligence behind it all. It would claim you need a designer to explain complexity of this order. But science didn't assume that, and now we know that this apparent complexity can be quite easily brought about by a few signaling molecules.

ID in evolution is the end of evolution. ID says that the complexity in life today cannot be explained by the operation of natural laws -- we must look to an outside creator. If science assumes this position, it grinds to a halt. The next step would then be to investigate this outside creator, which cannot be done since he is outside science.

But if science doesn't choose to plug the hole with an outside creator, if science lets it remain a hole accurately representing the limits of current knowledge, and if science methodically attempts to plug the hole with the discovery of new knowledge, then it actually has a hope of getting somewhere. Equally importantly, in the process, it remains science and does not become theology.

Defending the teaching of ID on the basis of "principles of public education" is all well and good. I have no problem whatsoever with teaching ID in the classroom. But it belongs in the theology curriculum, because that it what it deals with -- supernatural explanations. If you don’t buy into the ID beliefs but want to examine them critically you can put it in a class on creation theories or anthropology or whatever. Just not in a science classroom, because it’s not science.

You make light of your poor understanding of science by referring to it as "special" and "sacrosanct". It is special only in that it takes its authority from the natural world and what we can learn of it through observation and experimentation. It is immune to opinions, pleas, Ph.D.s and sarcasm. It is not sacrosanct at all, it is quite the opposite. Science is all about asking questions and contesting theories. It takes nothing as sacrosanct, it questions everything. Repeatedly.

The only requirement is that your questions be framed within the scientific framework, that they make sense scientifically. You, and other ID proponents rebel against that - they want science to go outside its domain, to be what it is not. If you are unhappy with science, you are perfectly free to create a new field of study called "non-science" and create your own rules for it. If your field is as productive as science, you will no doubt gain respect and people will start taking your ID theories seriously.

Finally, you claim that if nothing else, ID should still be put in the science classroom because it introduces an element of morality. This statement has enormous implications.You are in effect stating that you believe that ID does lead to God, that God is the only source of morality. This, in my opinion, is why evolution proponents see all arguments in favor of ID as being politically driven despite any and all protests that ID isn’t creationism.

There are many people who do not believe in God, but who live moral lives and break no laws. Trying to foist your religious version of morality on them is long established practice undertaken by every proselytizing religion. No doubt it will continue for the foreseeable future. But please don’t be upset if others don’t buy into your religion, if they choose to be guided morally by something other than your god. Please don’t be upset if they point out that this is a political discussion. You rightly perceive science as being a threat to your beliefs, and you want neutralize, or at least minimize it by hitting the source -- the science classroom. There are other people just as determined to keep you out. You outnumber them, but they have an advantage too. Science itself works with them and against you.

And it's altruism now ....

In my post Cooperation and Intelligence I mentioned this eagerness of (some) scientists to draw wild, fanciful and far-reaching conclusions about human behavior from a few miniscule observations.

Another example is this story from AP about babies being innately wired for altruism, based on behavioral studies.

Briefly, this is what was done. The researcher performed certain tasks in view of the subjects (18 month old toddlers). The researcher periodically made deliberate mistakes. The subjects saw the mistakes and attempted to help. They did not help if it appeared that the researcher made the same move on purpose -- only if it looked like a genuine mistake.

Now the researcher calls this "pro-social motivation" which sounds like a reasonable explanation. However, the article goes on to refer to the behavior as "altruistic" several times. It is not clear if the word comes from the researcher or from sloppy reporting. However, the article reports that anthropologist Joan Silk (presumably someone with scientific credentials) wrote in the accompanying review that the babies were motivated by "empathy".

There is a big stretch between "pro-social motivation" and "altruism", or even "empathy". According to Merriam Webster:

Altruism

1. unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2. behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

The first is a complex concept that requires language and an analytical mind to understand. These toddlers were pre-verbal; clearly they were not capable of such analysis. The second definition is simplistic and when applied to this case.

Defining a behavior as "not beneficial to" the subject assumes that you know exactly and completely what is beneficial to the subject.

The simpler and sparser explanation is that the behavior is directed towards gaining acceptance in the social group - perhaps by evoking appreciation and benevolence from others. Babies are somewhat helpless, and tend to rely on care from adults. In the same way that their disproportionately huge eyes look cute to adults, such behavior also evokes positive feelings from the social group. In other words, it is a survival trait for a social animal. There is nothing altruistic about it.

I can see how someone might call this "pro-social motivation." Calling it "altruism", on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense.