Raymond E. Grizzle (Email: <ray.grizzle@unh.edu>)
A Few Suggestions for the Proponents of Intelligent Design

Metanexus: VIEWS  2001.08.31  (3088 words)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond E. Grizzle, a Research Scientist at the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
at the University of New Hampshire tells us that when he

"began to explore the relationship between science (particularly biology,
which is my major area of study) and theology, I quickly encountered the
writings of "young-earth creationists" who insisted there were only two
options for interpreting the biotic world: (their brand of) creationism and
evolutionism.  These creationists and some atheistic scientists further
insisted that the two positions were mutually exclusive, thus requiring a
conflict approach to science/theology interactions.  As a biologist, this
meant I needed to find problems with evolution that were serious enough to
warrant its abandonment.  Fortunately, this really only meant I would have
to read, analyze, and learn all the objection to evolution being raised by
several individuals, who had apparently dedicated their lives to attacking
it.  The job seemed easy.  Even if difficult times came along, I could
always fall back on the notion that creationism would undoubtedly win in the
end because it was clearly God's position.  Several things happened along
the way, however, to upset my plan."

In today's column, he reveals to us what a few of those things were that
upset his plan. He also shares some of the conclusions he has come to
concerning creation, evolution, and the Intelligent Design movement. One
should also note that this is a somewhat older piece, but as Prof. Grizzle
observed: while much of what it contains seems to be "old hat", it also
reflects a perspective that sometimes seems to be "just ignored or
forgotten."

So, let's get the old hat out, brush it off, and see if it still fits
properly and well!

For more information about Prof. Grizzle, and his interests in marine
ecology and environmental ethics, please go to the following webpage
<http://marine.unh.edu/jel/grizzle/grizzle.html>

Enjoy!

--Stacey E. Ake
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: Raymond E. Grizzle
Subject: A Few Suggestions for the Proponents of Intelligent Design
Email: <ray.grizzle@unh.edu>
 

Introduction
 

Several recent publications, including papers in Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith[1] have dealt with the concepts of intelligent design
(ID)[2] methodological naturalism (MN)[3] and related topics.  Arguments
(for God's existence) from design, especially in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, have a long history.  Many psalms, remind us that the wonder of
creation point to their Creator.  The apostle Paul argues that "... God's
invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been,
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." (Romans 1:20).
Natural theology, which was built on the pretense that nature revealed much
about its Creator, occupied a prominent position in academic circles for
centuries.  Recent work by scientists has also pointed in the direction of a
Creator.[4] All of us in the American Scientific Affiliation must be
proponents of design, at least in so far as we see the evidence of God in
the world we study.  However, compared to traditional arguments from design,
there is one crucial difference for me in the current push for ID - the
attempt to make design a part of science.  In contrast, I view traditional
arguments from design as pointing beyond science to our Creator.  This
difference is at the core of why I remain unconvinced of the overall merits
of the movement.

Arguments for ID are typically lengthy, philosophically heavy, and deal with
a variety of topics.  So far, the ID literature contains much with which I
agree.  However, I remain skeptical because the vast majority of ID
arguments seem to be only, peripherally related to my major objections.  By
this communication, I hope to distill these objections to three major areas,
and I will discuss them in the context of some suggestions.

A personal testimony

The primary suggestion I offer to proponents of ID is to disconnect
explicitly and emphatically your argument from arguments for eliminating MN
as a restriction on science.  Stop arguing for a "theistic science".[5]  If
this is done, you will then stand more directly in line with what I believe
is a powerful and still influential tradition of  using the characteristics
of creation to point beyond science and toward the Creator.  I see design in
nearly everything I study as a scientist, but I see this design as coming
from a realm beyond science.  For me, MN has been a kind of guidepost that
has allowed me to sort through the plethora of writings on creation,
evolution, and related topics, and arrive at a position where I have begun
to work on a satisfying integration faith and science.  Let me explain.

    When I began to explore the relationship between science (particularly
biology, which is my major area of study) and theology, I quickly
encountered the writings of "young-earth creationists" who insisted there
were only two options for interpreting the biotic world: (their brand of)
creationism and evolutionism.  These creationists and some atheistic
scientists further insisted that the two positions were mutually exclusive,
thus requiring a conflict approach to science/theology interactions.  As a
biologist, this meant I needed to find problems with evolution that were
serious enough to warrant its abandonment.  Fortunately, this really only
meant I would have to read, analyze, and learn all the objection to
evolution being raised by several individuals, who had apparently dedicated
their lives to attacking it.  The job seemed easy.  Even if difficult times
came along, I could always fall back on the notion that creationism would
undoubtedly win in the end because it was clearly God's position.  Several
things happened along the way, however, to upset my plan.

    The most important thing was that I encountered some alternative
viewpoints on the relationship between science and theology that made a lot
of sense, some of which are at least touched upon in Bernard Ramm's (1954)
well-known book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture.  Ramm's book
is a bit dated now, but it is still useful as a survey of much of the early
literature on science/theology interactions and as a concise statement of
one very influential view of what science is and how it can be related to
theology:

"Both science and theology deal with the same universe.  The goal of science
is to understand what is included in the concept of nature, and the goal of
theology is to understand what is included under the concept of God.  The
emphasis in science is on the visible universe, and in theology the emphasis
is on the invisible universe, but it is one universe.  If it is one universe
then the visible and the invisible interpenetrate epistemologically and
metaphysically" (p.28).

Ramm's view of science and theology suggests some general domains for each,
indicating that science mainly deals with the natural world and theology
mainly deals with God.  Perhaps more importantly, however, it asserts that
the boundaries between the domains of science and theology will not be neat,
suggesting that there may be problems with determining explicit boundaries.
Later, Ramm makes the important point that God is the ultimate cause of the
Universe and all other causes discovered by humans is secondary (p. 192).
Ramm's view provides the basis for a dualistic view with nature with respect
to explanatory causes.  It also supports the development of concepts like
complementary and levels of explanation.  It is just such a view that led me
out of what I now consider the quagmire of "creation science." I saw that
evolutionary theory was a theory of science and it need not be set against
belief in a Creator.  It provided Science against one interpretation of the
early chapters of Genesis but it did not provide any evidence against the
existence of God.  I felt as if my science-and my theology - had been freed
so that both could be explored in a satisfying and effective way.

    My message in all this is that I continue to cling to MN because it has
been so useful.  So far, the ID literature with which I am familiar has
offered the same confusion I found in the creation-science literature,
except it is packaged in some new terminology.[6]  Because arguments to
eliminate MD from science are really what concern me the most, I will turn
to two related areas in the ID literature where I find the arguments
particularly unconvincing.  I do this to further elaborate on how MN has
been helpful to me, and because I doubt anybody in the ID movement will heed
my first suggestion-to disconnect his or her argument from arguments for
eliminating MN as a restriction on science.  At this point, most ID
proponents have far too much invested in what I feel are revisionist
arguments for modern science which center on eliminating MN.

Some history of MN

My second suggestion to proponents of ID is to stop stating or implying that
MN is just an "arbitrary" restriction on modern science. It is not an
"arbitrary restriction in any sense of ordinary usage of the word.
Methodological naturalism is, in fact, a central part of the practice of
science that has completely emerged against all disciplines in the last 100
or so years.  It has been a major force within the scientific community
generally for centuries.[7] The history of MN is complex and intertwined
with a variety of philosophical and social issues.  It has been developing
at least since the 1500s, when Francis Bacon and Galileo Galilei were
struggling with a science that was deeply intertwined with theology.  It
persists as perhaps the distinguishing characteristics of what many consider
to be a general definition of science.  For example, in his introduction to
the philosophy of science, Del Ratzsch[8] discusses this restriction as one
way science is usually defined today.  Paul de Vries has provided an
insightful assessment of MN as a central component of modern science from a
theological perspectives.[9]  Several recent papers in PSCH have dealt with
MN as a core concept of modern science.[10] And in all my training in
science, there was never any mention of even the possibility that anything
other than natural causes should be included in scientific explanations.
Therefore, I was more than a little surprised to read the following
statement by J. P. Moreland:

"Theistic science has been recognized as science by philosophers and
scientists throughout much of the history     of science.  Thus the burden
of proof is on anyone who would revise this tradition...".[11]

I agree that theistic science has been recognized as science throughout much
of the history of science, but this recognition for approximately the first
last 100 years has only come from fringe groups.  I suggest to Moreland that
he needs to do more work on the modern history of science, including
research on how science is taught today in undergraduate and graduate
programs.  If he still thinks theistic science has any standing at all in
modern science, he should simply read a few science textbooks looking for
God as a casual explanation.  Moreland is among the revisionists, not the
other way around.

MN and Demarcation Arguments

The final suggestion I make to proponents of ID is simply to admit that
science and religion are different in at least some respects, then decide
how they are different.  One disturbing aspect of the ID literature is page
after page of discussion indicating there is really no difference between
science and other disciplines: the articles by Moreland and Meyer in the
March 1994 issue of PSCF are examples (see note 1).  I do not question the
contention by both Meyer and Moreland that many philosophers long ago
abandoned attempts ' at distinguishing science from non-science. However, I
maintain that it would be difficult indeed to find anyone (other than some
philosophers?) who thinks science and religion are the same thing.  I begin
with quotes from Moreland and Meyer to further explain my objections.

    Moreland argues in favor of a view he says is prevalent among
philosophers: there is no adequate line of demarcation between science and
non-science/pseudoscience, no set of necessary and sufficient conditions for
something to count as scientific"(p.4).  He continues later "The plain fact
is that historians and philosophers are almost universally agreed that there
is no adequate definition of science...no line of demarcation between
science and non-science or pseudo-science..."(p.23).  Meyer concurs:
"Philosophers of science have generally lost patience with attempts to
discredit theories as ''nonscientific'' by using philosophical or
methodological litmus tests.  Such so-called 'demarcation criteria'-criteria
that purport to distinguish true science from pseudo-science, metaphysics
and religion-have inevitably fallen prey to death by a thousand counter
examples"(p.14).

    If these statements are taken in a straightforward manner, then all
modern dictionaries need to be revised.  If, however, they refer mainly to
assessment of the relative merits or certainty of some scientific theories
to another form of knowledge, then could accept them in part.  I talked with
Steve Meyer, and he assures me that there are differences between science
and religion in the quote here he was mainly referring to attempts at
determining where the two overlap (personal communication, 12 May, 1994).
In other works, he feels the problem is largely one of determining boundary
conditions, I concur.  This is the problem Ramm (1954, p.28) was referring
to in the above quote. It will always be difficult to define in detail the
relationship between science and religion, particularly their boundaries,
but surely, we can agree the two are different.  I suggest that proponents
of ID begin with this assumption and turn to determining what makes science
and religion different rather than continuing to wring their hands over how
similar they are.  I further suggest that if they do this, they will find MN
at the core of the disciplines.

Closing Remarks

I have primarily argued here against one major component of the ID movement:
the re- introduction of God as a causal explanation into science. My
position is based on a high respect for both science and theology in their
present forms.  I just do not see the problems with a naturalistic science
that so many proponents of ID bemoan.  In contrast, I think a careful look
at the history of science/religion interactions will show that MN is the
most important concept to be developed thus far.  It has allowed both to
flourish without undue control by the other.  I believe that if the ID
movement successfully resulted in the theistic science some envision, we
would be well on our way backwards in time to the old confrontational,
either/or debates fought by Galileo and others.  The overall result would be
no different from that of some kinds of creationism (e.g. "young-earth
creationism") where one is forced to accept either a naturalistic
explanation or God.  I much prefer a dualistic approach where the natural
mechanisms described by science are at lease potentially accepted along with
the supernatural descriptions of theology.  I see the most productive work
ahead of us to be determining how the two disciplines in their present forms
should interact.  There may be some "ultimate theory" developed someday that
incorporates all disciplines.  The road that leads to such a theory is not
clear to me but I do not think most proponents of ID are even moving in the
right direction.  If I am mistaken, I sincerely hope they will (again) take
some tie to try to help me see the errors in my ways.

Acknowledgments

Chuck Austerberrv, Wilbur Bullock, Paul Rothrock and Andy Whipple reviewed
an earlier version of the manuscript.  In some areas we differ in our views,
but in all cases I am most appreciative of their comments.

                                End Notes
1 Hasker, W., 1992,"Evolution and Alvin Plantinga," PSCF,44 (3):150-162;
Murphy, N., 1993, "Phillip Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of
Darwin,  PSCF,45(1) 26-36; Moreland, J.P.,1994a, "Conceptual Problems and
the Scientific Status of Creation Science," PSCF, 46(1) 2-13; Moreland,
J.P., 1994b "Response to Meyer and Bube," PSCF.

2 ID refers to a movement that is partially defined by the title of a recent
book edited by J. P. Moreland(1994) The Creation Hypothesis.  Scientific
Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, University Press.  According to the
back cover, this book aims to  "...offer the foundation for a new paradigm
of scientific thinking." ID was first popularized in a volume entitled, Of
Panda and People by P. Davis and D. H. Kenyon,, published in 1989 by
Haughton Publishing Company, , Dallas, Texas.  Most ID proponents
specifically aim, to construct a theistic Science, whereby God (but see note
5) can be invoked  as a casual explanation in  science.

3 I define MN as the restriction of scientific explanations to natural
causes.  I explicitly do not use the term to give legitimacy to Scientism
and related views, whereby science is declared to be the only valid
explanation of something.  Nor do I define it as the restriction of science
to information provided by nature.  In other words, I do not eliminate
theology or the Bible as possible sources of information to be used in
carrying out scientific investigations, but any scientific explanations that
result from such investigations must not include - or imply -supernatural
causes.

4 E.g. Templeton, J. M. and.  R. L. Herrmann, 1989, The God Who Would be
Known: Revelations of the Divine in Contemporary Science.  Harper & Row; Van
Till, H.j... et al. 1990.  Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific
Perspectives on the World's Formation, Eerdmans.

5 I am aware that some ID proponents emphatically deny they necessarily
refer to God by their arguments but I think they are only deceiving
themselves if they think those outside the ID movement feel the same way.
For example, see The Wall Street Journal, Monday, November 14, 1994 for an
article on the ID movement and subtitled "Who did the Designing.  It Doesn't
Say: Critics See Disguised Creationism, 'Agent' Who Hath No Name."

6 E.g Meyer, S.C. 1994.  "The Methodological Equivalence of Design &
Descent: Can There Be a Scientific Theory of Creation." pp. 67-112 in:
Moreland, J.P. 1994 (ed.) (note 2), p. 70.

7 Barbour, Ian G., 1966, Issues in Science and Religion, Harper & Row;
Klaarer,, Eugene M., 1977, Religious Origins of Modern Science,  Eerdmans
Hummel, Charles E., 1986, The Galileo Connection, Inter Varsity Press;
Barbour, Ian G. 1990.  Religion in an Age of Science, Harper & Row.

8 Ratzsch, Del, 1986, Philosophy of Science: The Natural Sciences in
Christian Perspective, InterVarsity Press, p.14

9 de Vries, Paul, 1986, "Naturalism in the natural Sciences:: A Christian
Perspective." Christian Scholar's Review 15(4):399-396.

10 See papers in note 1 by Bube, Hasker, and Murphy.

11 Moreland, J.P. 1994.  "Theistic Science and Methodoligical Naturalism" in
Moreland, J.P.1994 (ed.)(note 2), p.51.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This list is hosted by Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science
<http://www.metanexus.net>.  The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect
those of Metanexus or its sponsors.  To comment on this message, go to the
browser-based forum at the bottom of all postings in the magazine section of our
web site at
http://www.metanexus.net/index2.asp?fc=/archives/searcharchives.asp?list=16listtype=Magazine.
Metanexus welcomes submissions betwwen 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book
reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and
insightful ways for a general educated audience.  Previous columns give a good
indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays.  Columns may be
quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column and
"Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science
<http://www.metanexus.net>". Please send all inquiries and submissions to Dr.
Stacey Ake, Associate Editor of Metanexus at mailto:ake@metanexus.net.
Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by William Grassie.