The
Scientific Method: Darwin or Design Part 1
The challenges of intelligent design
Ellie Pratt
Ellie Pratt
“There never comes a point where a theory can be
said to be true. The most that one can claim for any theory
is that it has shared the successes of all its rivals
and that it has passed at least one test which they have
failed.” (Kitcher 1982:36)
The year 2005 was a contentious one for science. Traditionally
seen as the enemy of religion, in particular more fundamentalist
forms of Christanity, science has had its the demarcation
with philosophy and religion somewhat blurred, and the
science curriculum has been politicised by non-scientists.
In response, recently, Prof. Mike Archer, Dean of Science
at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), took a lead
among thousands of scientists to implore education regulatory
bodies to keep Intelligent Design out of the science classroom
on the grounds that it does not ‘count as science’. Not
surprisingly, this thrust has been countered by proponents
of Intelligent Design on the grounds that Darwinian evolution
is ‘just a theory’ and thus should share equal footing
with Intelligent Design and Creationism.
But what makes this debate any different from the multitude
of debates surrounding scientific principles? Countless
times, our accepted theories have been superseded by modified
ideas as new information has been uncovered or shown to
be essentially incorrect. One only has to call to mind
the Aristotelian flat-earth hypothesis to see that, often,
our best ideas are not quite right. While there is no
doubt that science is not free from critical analysis,
such investigation must be done in a manner consistent
with the principles of scientific endeavour.
 |
| Charles Darwin |
Evolutionary biologists are continually confronted with the statement that Darwinian evolution is ‘just a theory’ – an attempt to take scientists to task based on the idea that the ‘just a theory’ reprimand somehow negates arguments for evolution. However, any scientist will freely admit that everything in science, from Einstein’s theory of Relativity to atomic structure, is ‘just a theory’. So where does this argument leave science? Fortunately, there is no need to start mourning the death of ‘real’ science. On the contrary, the ability of science to deal with contending theories is one of its defining and important features. If we accept such rivalry, how does one theory gain more or less validity than others, if all are drawn from the pool of just a theory? In science, a line is drawn in the sand as to what constitutes good scientific theory. The problem then becomes a question of whether Darwin's account of evolution is scientifically well-founded, not a question of whether Darwin’s account of evolution is just a theory or is actually truth.
To determine whether Darwin’s account of evolution is scientifically valid, we must investigate what makes a theory ‘scientific’, that is, how the line gets drawn in the sand. The idea that there is a need for a demarcation criteria in science is not new. As early as Parmenides and Aristotle, there was an acknowledged need among philosophers to seek a division between knowledge and mere opinion. In the twentieth century, the Vienna Circle of the 1920’s developed the so called Logical-Positivist ‘verifiability criterion’. This criterion tests a statement to determine the value of the ‘truth’ it presents based on the logic of its components. However, the Logical-Positivist methodology in evaluating meaningful statements is not without flaws. Logical-Positivism rules out any metaphysical argument as meaningless, which has fuelled criticism of the approach.
Such criticism does not totally invalidate Logical-Positivism. Instead, Karl Popper argues that is it impossible to contradict a statement using verifiability. If we are to take the famous example, ‘all ravens are black’, the only way to contradict this statement using verifiability as the criterion is to find every raven that has existed in the history of the universe and show them all to be black. It follows quite naturally then that, as Popper argues, the way to formulate a demarcation of science from non-science is not through verifiability; rather, it is through falsifiability. Accordingly, if one white raven is found, then the above statement is refuted.
It is at this point that demarcation becomes problematic because there are many ways in which it can occur, and it must be acknowledged that the process of demarcation itself is contentious. However, in the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn presented the argument that science is not simply about proving or refuting theories; rather scientists must work within established structures of knowledge. In these structures, anomalies in a theory are not grounds for disregarding that theory. Instead, scientists work within the ‘normal science’ method until something so different to the theory appears that there is a crisis, resulting in a transformation, a shift in belief from one theory to a replacement, and the standard of what constitutes ‘normal’ science shifts.
It seems, then, that there can be no black and white demarcation of science from non-science. However, based on the theorising of philosophers of science, we can generate a basic framework of the methodology that underpins Kuhn’s ‘normal science’. Good science must make claims and hypotheses based on accepted evidence. Good science also leads to further research and development of new theories. In addition, these hypotheses must be rigorously tested and kept only if they stand up to this testing; otherwise, they must be modified. Theories must also be based not on a single statement but must consist of many auxiliary hypotheses, which when combine to form a complete theory. Accordingly, as the predictions of a theory hold up to testing, those aspects of the theory gain general acceptance and become scientific knowledge. By these criteria, Darwin’s theory seems to hold up. more>
OnSET is an initiative of the Science Communication Program
URL: http://www.onset.unsw.edu.au/ Enquiries: onset@unsw.edu.au
Authorised by: Will Rifkin, Science Communication
Site updated: 7 Febuary, 2006 © UNSW 2006 | Disclaimer
CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G
OnSET is an online science magazine, written and produced by students.
OnSET Issue 6 launches for O-Week 2006!
Worldwide
Day in Science
University
students from around the world are taking a snapshot
of scientific endeavour.
Sunswift
III
The UNSW Solar Racing Team is embarking
on an exciting new project, to design and build the
most advanced solar car ever built in Australia.
Outreach
Centre for Sciences
UNSW Science students can visit your school
to present an exciting Science Show or planetarium
session.
South
Pole Diaries
Follow the daily adventures of UNSW astronomers
at the South Pole and Dome C through these diaries.
News in Science
UNSW is not responsible for the content of
these external sites