Intelligent Design? -- It's the epistemology, stupid!
The latest challenge to the established theory of Darwinian evolution, so-called Intelligent Design (ID), is an example of Darwinian "descent with modification" resulting from the "struggle for existence." The lineage of ID goes back through 20th century Creationism to 19th century Natural Theology; to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages and still further back to roots in Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Causality.
Like its ancestors, ID is a philosophical claim based on the a priori premise that there is a someone or something—God, Prime Mover, Immanent Force—that directs in some ineffable way all life to its present state. And therefore, biological science is incomplete in its explanation of how life has evolved as formulated by modern Darwinism (aka Neo-Darwinism). The rationale behind ID and its earlier versions has been metaphysical and/or religious and does not, by that very fact, qualify as science. Each of ID’s philosophical predecessors has been challenged and become extinct as scientific explanation. Their philosophical value continues to be debated.
The crucial difference between these various philosophical claims and science’s claim is an epistemological one. (Recall that epistemology addresses questions like: What are the limits of knowledge? How do we know what we know? What constitutes as evidence for knowing or not knowing?) Science is committed to a method of hypothesis testing, and physical, material evidence determines the validity of the hypothesis. ID is committed to a prior belief that can trump such evidence if it does not conform to that belief. ID can always—and usually does—dispute a scientific claim by an ad hoc assertion (with no contrary evidence) that instead aligns with its prior belief.
All the above is not to deny that there may be a someone or something behind the Universe but, as far as science is concerned, that is in the domain of the unknown and unknowable and, consequently, belongs to the realm of philosophical discussion and debate. For many people the roles that science and religion play can be complementary to each other and not opposed, as so pithily proclaimed by Galileo, in the early 17th century—and paraphrased by Pope John Paul II in the late 20th: "The Bible…does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how to go to heaven."
-- Léo F. Laporte, 2005
Email To A Friend