Nerds' Corner

Why I STILL Think Judge Jones' Ruling on Intelligent Design Resembles a Suicide Bombing

by Blake Roeber

Blake received some thoughtful Coffee Shop criticisms to his last article, so he's decided to address them here. Read on, friends. Read on.

Informative Introduction

In my previous article, "On the Falsifiability of Creationism and/or ID Theory," I argued that the extent to which creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable is also the extent to which Darwinian evolution is non-verifiable, and vice versa. Then I argued that Darwinian evolutionists and creationists/ID theorists can only accuse each other of espousing non-falsifiable theories at the cost of damaging the scientific status of their own theories. To quote myself, "they destroy their opponents' positions, but only at the cost of destroying their own positions in the process."

The point of my previous article was to show that, because creationism/ID theory and Darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive, creationism/ID theory is accountable to whatever evidence we have for
Darwinian evolution.

I've received insightful responses to these arguments in the Coffee Shop and I'm happy to report that most of them have been critical. Because these criticisms have raised interesting and important questions, I've decided to address the best of them in this article.

Two Criticisms I Savored with Relish

So, here are my favorites.

First, a very insightful and articulate reader, whom I will respectfully refer to as Dr. X, argues as follows:

Blake's basic argument is that if we have enough evidence to prove Darwinian evolution, then we have enough evidence to refute creationism/ID theory. If one claims that creationism/ID is not falsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

The problem is that science doesn't work this way. I agree that Darwinian evolution is unprovable. But so are most other scientific theories including atomic theory and relativity. Science never really proves anything. Science constructs hypotheses to explain observed events. A sound hypothesis will explain all existing observations, be testable (and thereby falsifiable if it fails the tests), and predictive. As new observations are made, they will either support the existing hypothesis or not. If not, a new hypothesis needs to be formed that explains all the old and new observations. Science can't prove anything because science can never guarantee that every relevant observation has been made.

However, science can disprove things. If an observation can be made that is inconsistent with an existing hypothesis, then the hypothesis needs to be changed/refined/modified or ultimately rejected. …

… The problem is that science cannot absolutely prove a theory like evolution to be true. Science can only say that evolution is the best explanation for the known observations. … The article's conclusion is flawed because it is based on a misunderstanding of how science works.

Another thoughtful reader, whom I will respectfully refer to as Dr. Y, articulates a similar criticism:

Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory that is falsifiable but not provable. … Falsification and proof are absolute sorts of things. Falsification is easy (X->Y is falsified by any instance of X without Y) but proof is not. Support, however, is pretty easy to come by and is the foundation of modern empirical science.

Because of the difference between support and falsification (which I think posed a problem for Blake in that he seems to conflate support and proof), support for theory X does not necessarily constitute falsification of an exclusive theory Y. If this is the case, then there can be data for Darwinian evolution which does not falsify creationism.

… Darwinian evolution, being science, plays fair and creationism does not. Blake's argument works if we're comparing scientific theories, but not if we're comparing a scientific theory and creationism.

These objections express and suggest numerous ideas that deserve responses, but, given the time and space restrictions I'm obliged to work within, I'll restrict myself to what I believe are the most important of them.

But first, let me introduce a few terms.

A Boring but Important Detour Into Terminology: Skip at Your Own Risk

In general, people are rational insofar as they have reasons for their beliefs, and irrational insofar as they don't. It's not easy to say exactly what a reason for a belief amounts to, but, for the sake of clear communication, let's simplify things and suppose that, whatever they are, reasons are clear-cut, easily identifiable, and objectively quantifiable.

Also, let's suppose that evidence gives us reasons — that is, let's suppose that, when we have evidence for our beliefs, we also have reasons for holding them.

Finally, let us suppose that one piece of evidence gives us exactly one reason.

To repeat a few ideas from my last article, two theories A and B are mutually exclusive if they can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense. The theory that Mr. Q is the lone murderer of Mr. P and the theory that Mr. R is the lone murderer of Mr. P are mutually exclusive. If two theories A and B are mutually exclusive and one of them is true, then the other is false. If the theory that Mr. Q is the lone murderer of Mr. P is true, then the theory that Mr. R is the lone murderer of Mr. P is false. If A and B are mutually exclusive, then a reason to accept one is also a reason to reject the other. A video showing Q murder P gives us a reason to accept the theory that Q did it; it also give us a reason to reject the theory that R did it.

Suppose that, after all of the evidence has been compiled and analyzed, we have 10 reasons to accept the theory that Q did it and three reasons to accept the theory that R did it. In this case, the three reasons we have for accepting the theory that R did it cancel out three of the reasons we have for accepting the theory that Q did it, and we are left with seven reasons to accept the theory that Q did it. This means that, overall, we are also left with seven reasons to reject the theory that R did it.¹

Like the theory that Mr. Q murdered Mr. P and the theory that he didn't, Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID are mutually exclusive.² Thus, if we have 15 reasons for accepting Darwinian evolution and 10 reasons for accepting creationism/ID, then, overall, we have five reasons for accepting Darwinian evolution and five reasons for rejecting creationism/ID … and so on and so forth.³

How Scientists Work

Having introduced this simplified way of weighing the evidence for mutually exclusive theories, let me address the criticisms above.

The first idea I would like to address involves that claim that my argument assumes a false view of how science works. As Dr. X puts it, "The problem [with Blake's argument] is that science doesn't work this way."

Of course, the way science works is really just the way scientists work. The word "science" doesn't refer to anything that exists independently of the practices of embodied, fallible scientists. How, then, do scientists work?

I ask not because I don't know, but because, in the argument Dr. X criticizes, I didn't specify how they work. Instead, I specified how certain logical relationships bear on rationality in general. I showed that, if two theories A and B are mutually exclusive, then the truth of A implies the falsehood of B and vice versa. Then I argued that, given the mutual exclusivity of A and B, "the degree to which we have evidence for A is also the degree to which we have evidence against B," and vice versa.

Put in the terminology outlined above, my argument is that, if A and B are mutually exclusive, then the number of reasons we have for accepting A must correspond exactly to the number of reasons we have for rejecting B, and vice versa. Because this claim is true or false by virtue of the logical relationships that hold between A and B, there's an important sense in which scientific practice is completely irrelevant to my argument.

An Interesting Argument Almost Forwarded by Drs. X and Y

Second, I would like to address an argument that Drs. X and Y both suggest, but don't put forward explicitly. In my view, this is the most powerful of the arguments that can be extracted from their criticisms. It goes as follows:

Blake argues:

(i) If A and B are mutually exclusive and A is non-falsifiable, then B is unprovable.

(ii) Creationism/ID theory and Darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive.

Therefore,

(iii) If Creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Therefore,

(iv) One cannot argue that creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable without harming the scientific status of Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution is unprovable in principle.

Therefore,

Darwinian evolution is unprovable regardless of whether or not creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable.
Scientists accept Darwinian evolution not because they believe it has been proven but because it explains more of their observations than any competing theory.
Scientists are rational to accept a theory that explains more of their observations than any competing theory.

Therefore,

The fact that Darwinian evolution is unprovable does not detract from the rationality of their accepting it.
If a theory is non-falsifiable, however, then it isn't genuinely scientific.
Creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable.

Therefore,

Creationism/ID theory isn't genuinely scientific.
Scientists cannot rationally accept a theory that isn't genuinely scientific.

Therefore,

Scientists cannot rationally accept creationism/ID theory.

Therefore,

Blake's argument fails on all counts. It neither answers the charge that creationism/ID theory isn't scientific nor gives scientists any reason to reject Darwinian evolution.

What's Wrong with this Argument?

The actual arguments of Drs. X and Y don't wear their form on their sleeves. Nevertheless, I think (1) through (12) express their argument in a very charitable way. And this is important because the argument expressed by (1) through (12) isn't sound.

For starters, note that, where Drs. X and Y make repeated reference to the impossibility of proving Darwinian evolution, my argument focused on the possibility of verifying it. In contrast to (iii), above, I argued that the extent to which creationism/ID are non-falsifiable is also the extent to which Darwinian evolution is non-verifiable. I argued this because I believe verification and falsification come in degrees.⁴

Second, note that, even if we substitute "non-verifiable" for "unprovable" in the argument above, premise (1) is still false. Contrary to what Drs. X and Y seem to suggest, I didn't try to derive (iv) from (iii). Rather, I showed that the number of reasons we have for accepting Darwinian evolution must correspond exactly to the number of reasons we have for rejecting creationism/ID theory. It was upon this basis that I argued for (iv).

What I Wish I'd Said, But Didn't

Having rejected this mistaken reading of my argument, I must confess that I could have been clearer. In fact, I can see why Drs. X and Y read me the way they did.

Here's what I wish I had said, but didn't:

Because Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID theory are mutually exclusive, the number of reasons we have for accepting one must correspond exactly to the number of reasons we have for rejecting the other.

The significance of the charge that creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable is that creationism/ID theory doesn't "play fair," as Dr. Y insightfully notes. To reject creationism/ID theory as non-falsifiable is to claim that creationism/ID theory is somehow unaccountable to the evidence in a way that genuinely scientific theories are not.

The point of my previous article was to show that, because creationism/ID theory and Darwinian evolution are mutually exclusive, creationism/ID theory is accountable to whatever evidence we have for Darwinian evolution. If we have 50,000 reasons for accepting Darwinian evolution, then we have 50,000 reasons for rejecting creationism/ID theory, and so on.

The fact that creationism/ID theory is accountable to whatever evidence we have for Darwinian evolution puts Judge Jones and others who forward the "creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable" argument in the following dilemma:

Either scientists are in possession of good, scientific reasons for accepting Darwinian evolution, or they are not. If they are, then they are also in possession of good, scientific reasons for rejecting creationism/ID theory, in which case there is absolutely no need to rely on the argument that creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable. They can bar it from the science classroom for the same reason they bar geocentrism and the caloric theory of heat from the science classroom: It's false, and everybody who looks at the evidence can see that it's false.

C O F F E E S H O P

What do you think of Blake's responses to the criticisms?

Join the discussion!

On the other hand, it is necessary for Judge Jones, et al, to rely on this argument only if scientists are not in possession of good, scientific reasons for accepting Darwinian evolution. The reliance of Judge Jones and others on the argument that creationism/ID theory is non-falsifiable therefore suggests a conclusion that would utterly destroy the scientific status of Darwinian evolution: Namely, scientists are not in possession of good, scientific reasons for accepting it.

This is why I think Judge Jones' ruling on ID in the classroom resembles a suicide bombing.

Notes

If you're inclined to object, at this point, that not all reasons are equal, I suggest taking a course in epistemology and reading (for starters) Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Reid, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Dewey, Russell, Wittgenstein, Chisholm, Gettier, Goldman and Sosa.

While the observation that some reasons are better than others raises interesting questions — What constitutes good evidence?, What makes one reason better than another?, etc. — within the context of this article, all of these questions are rabbit trails. As a matter of historical fact, 2,400 years of inquiry and analysis have lead to convolution and entrenched controversy of the sort that makes philosophy what it is.

The fact of the matter is, if we cannot justifiedly weigh evidence, appraise reasons, or come to conclusions without first wrestling with the fact that not all reasons are equal, then we're left to pick between, on the one hand, all-out irrationality and, on the other, global skepticism. For the sake of focusing on the questions this article set out to answer, throughout the course of the article I will talk as if reasons are clear-cut, easily identifiable, objectively quantifiable things, that they come in agreed upon, measurable units, like dollars, degrees and days. Back^

In my last article, I presented the following outline of the terms "ID theory" and "Darwinian evolution:"

While ID theory rejects the claim that purely natural processes can account for life on earth, ID theory takes no position on the claim that the organisms that populate the earth have all descended from a common ancestor. Yet one who believes that these organisms have all descended from a common ancestor is, in an important sense, an evolutionist. Thus, it's possible to be an ID theorist and an evolutionist. What's not possible is to be an ID theorist and a Darwinian evolutionist, since Darwinian evolution involves the claim that purely natural processes can account for life on earth.
Let me add to this by pointing out that, while creationism takes issue with ID theory's agnosticism towards the common ancestor theory, it agrees with ID in its rejection of the claim that purely natural processes can account for life. Thus, to juxtapose creationism/ID theory and Darwinian evolution is to juxtapose the view that purely natural processes can account for life and the view that purely natural processes cannot account for life. Thus, Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID theory are clearly mutually exclusive. Back^

Two theories A and B are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive if they can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense and one of them must be true.

The theory that I am a man and the theory that I am not a man are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; they can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense, and one of them must be true.

The theory that I am the tallest TrueU author and the theory Micah is the tallest TrueU author are mutually exclusive but not jointly exhaustive. They can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense, but it's possible that neither of them is true. For example, if Lindy Keffer is the tallest TrueU author, then both of them are false.

The theory that Mr. Q murdered Mr. P and the theory that Mr. R murdered Mr. P are mutually exclusive but they are not jointly exhaustive; a third person may have murdered P. Back^

Consider the theory that Mr. Q is the murderer, the competing theory that he is not, and the following scenarios: (a) all the evidence points to Mr. Q, (b) all the evidence points away from Mr. Q, and (c) just over half of the evidence points to Mr. Q. These scenarios present obvious examples in which the theory that Mr. Q is the murderer and the theory that he is not are verified and falsified to different degrees. Yet Dr. Y argues that theories enjoy degrees of verification but do not enjoy degrees of falsification; theories are falsified absolutely, if at all, he says.

Thinking of verification and falsification in terms of the evidence for and against different theories, (which is how scientists generally think of them), Dr. Y's view is clearly wrong. Even if we concede the point that theories can be falsified absolutely (and most philosophers of science do not), it is clear that they can also be falsified to various degrees. Back^