Why Intelligent Design (ID) Is Science - A Response to the Inadequate Demarcation Criteria Proposed by Philosopher's of Science Against ID

In 2005, the famous Dover trial took place. It examined the scientific validity of Intelligent Design and found it wanting. Numerous detractors of the theory sought to show why ID did not meet the requirements of a proper scientific theory. The result being that Judge John E Jones III ruled: "ID is not Science". Besides the patent absurdity of a judge - with no scientific or philosophical background - ruling on such a matter which is clearly beyond the scope of his authority, this was still seen as a win for the Scientific Establishment. But is that still so today?

Since that time, the ID think tank known as the Discovery Institute has thrived amidst the vicious criticism it has received. They have also taken to responding to the critics and their claims that ID is not science, having done so in numerous articles and books published by their various supporters. One prominent defender of ID is Dr Stephen C Meyer, a Philosopher of Science who attained his Ph.D. at Cambridge University. He wrote in his 2009 book 'Signature in the Cell': "Historians and Philosopher's of Science... do not agree about how to define science. Many doubt there is even a single definition that can characterize all the difference kinds of Science." This is a fair point. This is known as the "Demarcation Problem" in the Philosophy of Science which is the philosophical problem of how to properly distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

The value of the opposition to Intelligent Design from Philosopher's of Science is being questioned. Dr Meyer, in his book mentioned earlier, refutes the various criticisms of ID and the reasons why it must not be science. He is well aware of the contradictions that result from attempting to distinguish science from pseudoscience and shows why the various attacks on the supposed unscientific nature of ID would, if applied to other accepted scientific theories also put them in the realm of pseudoscience. He goes on to convincingly argue that ID asks questions that could properly be considered scientific. This has created a crisis for Philosopher's of Science, who have been unable to acknowledge the weight of these refutations and come up with better and more comprehensive arguments.

That being said, I am eager to understand why it is that people are so adamant that ID simply is not science despite not having offered any convincing arguments to support their view. Perhaps one way to contextualize their point of view is by interpreting their opposition from the vantage of science as a social enterprise where subjective groupthink viewpoints inevitably creep in. At the heart of any human organizatiom, be it religious or political, there is a commitment to orthodoxy - correct beliefs one must hold to be considered a part of that group. This orthodoxy promotes consensus and therefore stability. One cannot idealistically conclude that merely because of the aspirations of science that it must therefore be immune to the same potential stumbling blocks faced by other human organizations. This is a reasonable lens by which to understand the attacks on the validity of ID.

What is the orthodox opinion with regard to Intelligent Design? What is this a priori assumption of the Scientific Establishment that MUST be assented to? It is a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This concept posits that, for something to be scientific, it must explain by reference to purely material causes. Naturalism implicitly rejects the possibility of Intelligent Design regardless of whether it is true or not. Indeed, this is a subjective fact for the Scientific Establishment. However, As far as I can see, trying to turn the ID controversy into a mere semantic dispute (of whether it is science) detracts from the real scientific challenges posed by the theory. One should not ask: "does this fit my subjective definition of science?" But rather: "Is Intelligent Design true? Does it provide a better explanation than its naturalistic competitors?" A careful study of the evidence will reveal that indeed it does.[1]

To conclude I ask, will this demarcation problem ever be resolved to show what many people feel must be true - namely that Intelligent Design is not science? Perhaps. But for now we can be assured that the the baseless consensus within the Scientific Community will do.






[1] For further reading, I recommend Dr Stephen C Meyer's books: "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt" for some of the comprehensive arguments for Intelligent Design.