What's all the hubbub about Intelligent Design?
I just watched Ben Stein's "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." I didn't catch the irony of the name. I thought it would be a movie about public education, but it's about Intelligent Design. As a scientist and one who believes the Bible quite literally, this video was informative. The only thing I had ever heard about Intelligent Design was the typical propaganda that it's a shallow excuse for the religious right to try to get the Bible into schools. I still expect that that's a large component of it, but I also realize that some proponents have a legitimate scientific approach.
Public Education is to Blame
The video shows numerous cases were Intelligent Design has received severe censorship from the academic community. I suggest that most of the blame for this behavior belongs to the dominance of government run education of children (i.e. public education in the US). That is, it's a matter of public discourse to decide what's in the curriculum for our children. This should be a personal and family decision. Instead the public votes and argues about it, law suits are filed, and people have a very serious need to persuade the public toward their beliefs. The impact is huge. How unfortunate.
The Scientists Feel Threatened
An interviewed scientists mentions from first-hand experience that many scientists who profess no concerns over the theory of evolution will in private and in trusted circles mention concerns and questions that are unanswered, perhaps even problematic. I can understand where they are coming from. The same thing happens in my religious community. While we individually might question many things, we don't wish to share these concerns with those who are less knowledgeable and confident about our precious beliefs, in case they blow the concerns out of proportion. This reflects the fact that we feel it is important for others to come to accept the truths that we believe (for their own sake). What's odd is for a scientific community to feel this way. It means they feel threatened. They're worried that the public will move the wrong direction on this scientific topic, and that's important to them. It's important that the public buy into what they feel confident about, even if serious concerns remain. What an unhealthy scientific environment.
Evidence Doesn't Prove Science Right
It's a little odd to hear scientists claiming that the evidence proves Darwin's theory of the origin of life, and disproves religion. This is not the typical role of evidence. Evidence can prove wrong a specific hypothesis or model (due to measurement noise and errors, this usually happens by rendering a hypothesis less and less likely until it is dismissed), but it doesn't prove it right. It's always possible that you just haven't figured out the right questions and experiments to break the theory. Newton's physics is the standard example of this.
You might ask, can't the evidence prove wrong the hypothesis that there is a God? Let me be a little more clear. Here is what I know about the subject of hypothesis testing. I teach a class at Princeton that covers hypothesis testing from a mathematical point of view. If you have a set of alternatives to choose from (maybe one is that God created man and the other is that chance and evolution did), then sure, the evidence can tell you something about how likely you are to be wrong in rejecting one. For example, you might decide on one hypothesis and feel confident because you know that under the other hypotheses the evidence you've seen is very unlikely. However, there is a catch (actually, two). First, rejecting one hypothesis can lead you to believe the other only if you know that one of the two must be true (i.e. the set of hypotheses must be exhaustive if you wish to "prove" that one is right by rejecting all the rest). Second, and more importantly, to apply such a hypothesis test, you need a very precise definition of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is vague, allowing for many possibilities, then it can be much harder and sometimes impossible to reject. It never works to have one hypothesis be a precise theory and the alternative to be anything but that theory. The "anything but" alternative will not be able to be rejected based on the evidence. So scientific theories are proven wrong but not proven right.
Many scientific theories are very precise and mathematical. They are perfect candidates for subjecting to the rigorous testing that forms the backbone of science. It's not clear that the theory of evolution as the origin of life is as precise as one would like. At least, the video interviewed people who suggested otherwise. On the other side, Intelligent Design is much more vague. It's basically anything but unguided evolution and creation. There will be no evidence to reject this. Strictly speaking, advocates of intelligent design are simply trying to poke holes in the null hypothesis---Darwin. They're doing what any scientist should do. The real question is whether the Darwin skeptics have enough fuel to cast legitimate doubt on the theory. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. There are and should be doubts about most scientific theories. I have many questions about the story of the evolution of life that I've never had answered in a satisfactory way.
When it comes to scientific education, evolution is one of the few topics where phrases like "the science has proved it" come to surface. I believe it's because it's such a politically charged topic. No other science was taught to me in such a manner. It's usually taught with much more healthy skepticism behind it.
So if you can't prove a scientific theory right, what are scientists trying to do. Well, it turns out that the ability to test a theory is integrally connected to the ability of the theory to make predictions about the world. If a scientific theory is precise and has not been rejected, then it must be making reasonably accurate predictions of the behavior of nature, and that's useful.
Another principle is at play here. Those who question the universe and existence have often been naturally guided by a principle that's become associated with the 14th-century Father William of Ockham (Occam's Razor). The simplest explanation is the most believable. If a sequence of ten arbitrary coincidences would explain how your car broke down, and another very simple explanation matched your experience as well, you're inclined to believe the simple explanation. This principle applies to creating a theory that matched data already observed. In the end, if your theory can make predictions about the world, then testing it in that way is all that is important. It turns out that simple explanations help avoid over-fitting your theory to the random noise of your measurements. The simpler explanations that match your data pretty well often have more accurate prediction capabilities. On top of that, don't we expect or at least hope for the laws of nature to be fairly simple.
Intelligent Design doesn't propose a specific alternative to Darwin's origin of life. However, the burden of the Creationist and anyone who adopts a specific alternative to Darwin's origin of life is to have an explanation simple enough to be believable (which depends on personal beliefs and experiences), especially in comparison to Darwin, yet which still matches and explains the data. Ultimately, to be confident from a logical point of view, the theory should provide predictions that can be tested. Then again, the hard thing about testing religious beliefs with the classical scientific approach is that it is hard/impossible to test a superior being (God) in a way that He does not desire. We have to follow His guidelines for testing His word.
I just watched Ben Stein's "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." I didn't catch the irony of the name. I thought it would be a movie about public education, but it's about Intelligent Design. As a scientist and one who believes the Bible quite literally, this video was informative. The only thing I had ever heard about Intelligent Design was the typical propaganda that it's a shallow excuse for the religious right to try to get the Bible into schools. I still expect that that's a large component of it, but I also realize that some proponents have a legitimate scientific approach.
Public Education is to Blame
The video shows numerous cases were Intelligent Design has received severe censorship from the academic community. I suggest that most of the blame for this behavior belongs to the dominance of government run education of children (i.e. public education in the US). That is, it's a matter of public discourse to decide what's in the curriculum for our children. This should be a personal and family decision. Instead the public votes and argues about it, law suits are filed, and people have a very serious need to persuade the public toward their beliefs. The impact is huge. How unfortunate.
The Scientists Feel Threatened
An interviewed scientists mentions from first-hand experience that many scientists who profess no concerns over the theory of evolution will in private and in trusted circles mention concerns and questions that are unanswered, perhaps even problematic. I can understand where they are coming from. The same thing happens in my religious community. While we individually might question many things, we don't wish to share these concerns with those who are less knowledgeable and confident about our precious beliefs, in case they blow the concerns out of proportion. This reflects the fact that we feel it is important for others to come to accept the truths that we believe (for their own sake). What's odd is for a scientific community to feel this way. It means they feel threatened. They're worried that the public will move the wrong direction on this scientific topic, and that's important to them. It's important that the public buy into what they feel confident about, even if serious concerns remain. What an unhealthy scientific environment.
Evidence Doesn't Prove Science Right
It's a little odd to hear scientists claiming that the evidence proves Darwin's theory of the origin of life, and disproves religion. This is not the typical role of evidence. Evidence can prove wrong a specific hypothesis or model (due to measurement noise and errors, this usually happens by rendering a hypothesis less and less likely until it is dismissed), but it doesn't prove it right. It's always possible that you just haven't figured out the right questions and experiments to break the theory. Newton's physics is the standard example of this.
You might ask, can't the evidence prove wrong the hypothesis that there is a God? Let me be a little more clear. Here is what I know about the subject of hypothesis testing. I teach a class at Princeton that covers hypothesis testing from a mathematical point of view. If you have a set of alternatives to choose from (maybe one is that God created man and the other is that chance and evolution did), then sure, the evidence can tell you something about how likely you are to be wrong in rejecting one. For example, you might decide on one hypothesis and feel confident because you know that under the other hypotheses the evidence you've seen is very unlikely. However, there is a catch (actually, two). First, rejecting one hypothesis can lead you to believe the other only if you know that one of the two must be true (i.e. the set of hypotheses must be exhaustive if you wish to "prove" that one is right by rejecting all the rest). Second, and more importantly, to apply such a hypothesis test, you need a very precise definition of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is vague, allowing for many possibilities, then it can be much harder and sometimes impossible to reject. It never works to have one hypothesis be a precise theory and the alternative to be anything but that theory. The "anything but" alternative will not be able to be rejected based on the evidence. So scientific theories are proven wrong but not proven right.
Many scientific theories are very precise and mathematical. They are perfect candidates for subjecting to the rigorous testing that forms the backbone of science. It's not clear that the theory of evolution as the origin of life is as precise as one would like. At least, the video interviewed people who suggested otherwise. On the other side, Intelligent Design is much more vague. It's basically anything but unguided evolution and creation. There will be no evidence to reject this. Strictly speaking, advocates of intelligent design are simply trying to poke holes in the null hypothesis---Darwin. They're doing what any scientist should do. The real question is whether the Darwin skeptics have enough fuel to cast legitimate doubt on the theory. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. There are and should be doubts about most scientific theories. I have many questions about the story of the evolution of life that I've never had answered in a satisfactory way.
When it comes to scientific education, evolution is one of the few topics where phrases like "the science has proved it" come to surface. I believe it's because it's such a politically charged topic. No other science was taught to me in such a manner. It's usually taught with much more healthy skepticism behind it.
So if you can't prove a scientific theory right, what are scientists trying to do. Well, it turns out that the ability to test a theory is integrally connected to the ability of the theory to make predictions about the world. If a scientific theory is precise and has not been rejected, then it must be making reasonably accurate predictions of the behavior of nature, and that's useful.
Another principle is at play here. Those who question the universe and existence have often been naturally guided by a principle that's become associated with the 14th-century Father William of Ockham (Occam's Razor). The simplest explanation is the most believable. If a sequence of ten arbitrary coincidences would explain how your car broke down, and another very simple explanation matched your experience as well, you're inclined to believe the simple explanation. This principle applies to creating a theory that matched data already observed. In the end, if your theory can make predictions about the world, then testing it in that way is all that is important. It turns out that simple explanations help avoid over-fitting your theory to the random noise of your measurements. The simpler explanations that match your data pretty well often have more accurate prediction capabilities. On top of that, don't we expect or at least hope for the laws of nature to be fairly simple.
Intelligent Design doesn't propose a specific alternative to Darwin's origin of life. However, the burden of the Creationist and anyone who adopts a specific alternative to Darwin's origin of life is to have an explanation simple enough to be believable (which depends on personal beliefs and experiences), especially in comparison to Darwin, yet which still matches and explains the data. Ultimately, to be confident from a logical point of view, the theory should provide predictions that can be tested. Then again, the hard thing about testing religious beliefs with the classical scientific approach is that it is hard/impossible to test a superior being (God) in a way that He does not desire. We have to follow His guidelines for testing His word.
No comments:
Post a Comment