One might have thought that the argument by design would have ceased to
\nbe a topic of serious religious debate and reflection after its limits
\nwere conclusively demonstrated by Hume’s devastating critique in the
\n18th Century. But you would have been wrong. In a recent editorial
\nappearing in the New York Times, Michael J. Behe defends the concept of
\n“Intelligent Design,” the 21st Century incarnation of this tired
\nstaple of 17th century natural theology. It would be pointless to
\nrehearse the arguments Hume uses to demonstrate the inconclusiveness of
\nDesign as an argument for the existence of God. I would refer the
\nreader to his *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion*. Behe, in fact,
\nclaims that intelligent design “says nothing about the religious idea of
\na creator,” a caveat that, in spite of its disingenuousness (can anyone
\nseriously doubt that what is at stake here is theistic belief?), we can
\nperhaps take as a tacit acknowledgment of Hume’s conclusions. Rather,
\nBehe presents Intelligent Design as a credible scientific explanation
\nfor the complexity of biological systems. This claim is dubious from
\ntwo perspectives. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
First, it rests on a misconception of what constitutes a
\nscientific explanation. A vague sense of wonder at the marvelous order
\nand complexity of life, however attractive such a notion may be, hardly
\nconstitutes a theoretical model allowing scientists to predict events in
\nthe natural world. To be sure, I have no doubt that such an
\n‘explanation” provides many human beings with a reassuring sense of
\nthe meaningfulness of the world and of human existence within it. But
\nthat’s hardly a scientific explanation, whose scientific worth is tied
\nto its predictive capacity. <\/p>\n
More dubious is Behe’s presumption that intelligent design is
\nnot a religiously based concept. It is based, he says, “on physical
\nevidence and a straightforward application of logic.” First of all, if
\nintelligent design truly had nothing to do with metaphysical belief, one
\nwould expect intelligent design to have attained general acceptance
\namong members in the scientific community. Science has a way of sorting
\nout competing empirically based theories, and that’s why the natural
\nsciences have been generally free of the long-standing scholastic
\ndisputes and factionalism that have characterized realms of human
\nendeavor like philosophy, politics, and of course, religion.
\nIntelligent design concerns a metaphysical principle that manifests
\nitself in natural phenomena. It’s not a theoretical model that allows
\nscientists to organize data or predict future events. Unlike Darwin’s
\ntheory of natural selection, which, as fundamentalist Christians like to
\nremind us, is “only” a theory, “intelligent design” does not constitute
\na scientific theory. <\/p>\n
Rather, intelligent design is a quasi-religious ideology that
\nmasquerades as a scientific theory. In this respect it is similar to
\nthe idea of evolution as the latter was applied to non-scientific uses
\nin Victorian anthropology and in some subtle and not-so-subtle
\nlibertarian and racist ideologies. Rhetorically what is going on is an
\nattempt to transfer the considerable prestige that science enjoys in the
\nmodern world onto what is in fact a metaphysical concept. It is a
\nstrategy of valorization that exploits the allure of “science.” In this
\nrespect it is not unlike political pundits rattling off statistics or
\nT.V. doctors using impressive sounding, pseudo-scientific jargon to sell
\ntoothpaste. In a sense it is not surprising that Behe, who is himself a
\nscientist, would appeal to the prestige of scientific discourse in order
\nto validate what is in reality a religious cum ideological belief. His
\nargument serves to remind one that even fine scientists, to say nothing
\nof mediocre ones, are often bad philosophers when they take off the lab
\ncoat. <\/p>\n
hnicholson<\/p>\n
the editors would like to welcome another guest contributor, hnicholson.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One might have thought that the argument by design would have ceased to be a topic of serious religious debate and reflection after its limits were conclusively demonstrated by Hume’s devastating critique in the 18th Century. But you would have been wrong. In a recent editorial appearing in the New York Times, Michael J. Behe … Continue reading Ideological design<\/span>