Eric Ryan Telfer, "The Science-Religion Dichotomy and the Intelligent Design Debate" (2005)

Work in Progress. Last up-dated 4/16/2005.
> <br> The Science-Religion Dichotomy and the Intelligent Design Debate

by Eric Ryan Telfer
> <br> In this essay, I use the terms ‘religion’, ‘science’, and ‘philosophy’, primarily in a narrow, positivistic sense, not because I think that usage accurately reflects reality, but because this is how the terms are commonly used in our present culture, unreflectively.
> <br> A common argument made by Darwinists who oppose intelligent design is that intelligent design is not science. Immediately we should note that this is a secondary issue. The issue of whether something was intelligently designed or not is one thing. Whether that issue is an issue that falls in the domain of science or not is quite another. Simply arguing that a proposition or theory is not science does not mean that the proposition or theory is not true. The issues are quite distinct.
> <br> As it turns out, the use of the “It is not science” proposition, for some, means, “It is not true” for given a strict positivistic view of science, truth is only obtained by way of science. So, not being science sometimes means ‘not being true’ in popular Darwinian usage. Some Darwinists think that if one can prove that a theory is not ‘science’ then they have offered proof that the same theory is not true. This is especially the case if there is an alternative theory, which is not thought to be science. For on a positivistic view of science and knowledge in general, how could a scientific theory ever take back seat to a non-scientific theory, when science trumps all other disciplines? The other disciplines, defined positivistically as well, either lead to no knowledge at all or lead to knowledge which will always be defeated if it is not consistent with science. And these other disciplines, on this view, lead to a relatively trivial knowledge or no knowledge at all. Recall that LaPlace had no need for the God hypothesis for he thought he could explain everything in terms of the initial velocities and movements of atoms. He even anticipated being able to predict the future. Any other knowledge would be trivial.
> <br> But the “It is not science” proposition typically is coupled with another proposition: “It is religion” or “It is creation science, which essentially is religion.” So, it is not just that it is not science, but that it is also religion. There are several important aspects to the "It is religion" proposition. One is that many Darwinists are also atheists. Richard Dawkins, in fact, says that Darwinism has made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. For some of such Darwinists, the proposition "It is religion" means "It is false" or "It is not even in the realm of true and false". So, in their minds, if they can show that something is religion, they have shown that it is false or not even capable of being true. Others, who may be more sympathetic to religion, will attempt to give religion more credit, thinking that it has some value, but that if a proposition is a religious proposition, ultimately it is more a matter of opinion arising from hope, emotion, fear and a subjective, irrational search for meaning than anything else. Hence, 'faith-talk' with respect to religion is loved by Darwinists, for it can easily be twisted into something irrational, which Darwinists think religion requires.
> <br> What develops quite quickly from these two propositions is a science/religion dichotomy applied to the issue of origins and used in the debate for leverage. On the one hand, science is built up as the exemplar of knowledge, and either the only way or the best, most reliable way to truth. On the other hand, religion is characterized as being capable of only mere belief, mere speculation, mere conjecture or mere opinion. One is capable of knowledge. The other is capable of only belief or opinion. One gets its results from experiment. The other gets its results from emotion, hope and fear. And so by up-playing one and down-playing the other, Darwinists attempt to gain leverage.
> <br> The science/religion dichotomy is further substantiated in the minds of Darwinists by another dichotomy: the fact/value dichotomy, which takes on many forms. Some disciplines are capable of obtaining facts. Some are not. Some are about facts. Some are not about facts, but about values or hopes or feelings or preferences. The science/religion dichotomy can be thought of as a type of fact/value dichotomy, where science is about facts and religion merely values. One is objective. The other subjective. And here we see another common dichotomy that works its way into the thinking: the objective/subjective dichotomy. All three of these dichotomies are related and each gives traction, in the minds of those using them, to the others.
> <br> From a different angle, there is the war metaphor. This metaphor paints religion and science at war with one another. It attempts to provide a historical foundation for the science/religion dichotomy in the form of a metaphor, which captures more attention and tends to catch on more easily in the culture.  Just as Darwin attempted to provide historical evidences for a theory that was not grounded in history, i.e.,  materialism, modern Darwinists and others, attempt to prove that the relation between science and religion is truly dichotomous by showing that they are at war, or have been, historically. It is not just that they ask different questions. It is not just that they are distinct. It is not just that they employ different methods. It is not just that they can obtain different results, i.e., truth and knowledge vs belief. It is also that, seen historically, we have good reason to think, according to historical revisionists,  that they are at war, which is what one might expect if they are so diametrically opposed otherwise. Regardless of its validity, which has been called into question by many, the war metaphor is a common tool used to substantiate the science/religion dichotomy, providing as it does, an historical flare to the issue in an easy to remember sound-byte, i.e., war metaphor.
> <br> Interestingly, those employing this metaphorical weapon rarely consider the history and the origin of the metaphor itself. In fact, the metaphor has its origins in the Enlightenment, where revisionist Enlightenment thinkers, like Voltaire and others admittedly and purposely set out to rewrite history in terms of this metaphor to defeat the Church once and for all. But aside from this, note that once the war metaphor is employed there follows an additional claim about which side is winning the war and which is losing. Science is in fact winning, it is said, while religion is losing. And so the war metaphor substantiates and is itself substantiated by the science-religion dichotomy.
> <br> Another interesting notion enters the picture as well, especially when the topic is related to education. It is the separation of church and state notion. This is employed, with the presumption that a theory about intelligent design must be a religious theory, while Darwinism is not. So, the former cannot be taught in public schools while the other can be without a problem. Science can be taught. Religion cannot. One might say that intelligent design is not about God so how can it be excluded from the education process with this separation of Church and State appeal? As it turns out, many who employ the separation of Church and State 'clause' (which is not in the Constitution) employ it to extremes. At its extreme, it is not just that God cannot be taught in schools. It is that nothing that even provides support for a God hypothesis can be taught in schools. Anything that might cause a student to lean towards the truth of a God hypothesis or even think positively at all about such a hypothesis is ultimately not allowed in the public school system (or would not be if some had their way). Any suggestion at all is disallowed, not just the topic per se. In as much as ID supports a God hypothesis, it cannot be allowed. Dembski’s ID argument does not, for example, necessarily require a super-natural agent. But the notion of intelligent design is getting very close to a God hypothesis, which Darwinists and separation of Church and State extremists do not like.
> <br> But the separation of Church and State notion does not stop here. It does not stop with teaching God explicitly. Nor does it stop with teaching ideas that may lend support to a God hypothesis. It also enters the scene in the form of 'guilt by association'. It does this in two ways.
> <br> First, in what amounts to a genetic fallacy, Darwinists (and sometimes judges) mistakenly think that just because an advocate of an idea like intelligent design is a Christian that his idea must simply be an argument from religion. As the thinking goes, he cannot possibly be objective, tainted as it is with the advocate's Christian intoxication. Hence, whatever he argues with respect to origins, if it supports a God hypothesis, must only find support itself from his own religious convictions. After all, if religion is only about values, and not facts, then there could be no objective source in reality for such a claim.
> <br> Second, Darwinists and others sometimes fail to appreciate the fact that just because a conclusion from one discipline or area of life is in agreement with a conclusion from another, it does not follow that it must be rejected. More specifically, it is absurd to conclude that intelligent design is false or not a part of science just because the Church has already concluded that there is an intelligent designer whom they call God. This point is important. Imagine an astrologer and a physicist reaching the same conclusion, but from their own respective methods. Is the conclusion from the physicist by way of physics to be rejected because the astrologer came to the same conclusion or because the astrolger came to the same conclusion first? Are all claims from the University to be rejected if they agree with or come close to sounding like conclusions already made by the Church? This would seem quite odd, as though the Church could be right about nothing.
> <br> Two other adjuncts used by Darwinists along with the science-religion dichotomy, the separation of Church and State 'clause' and the war metaphor are worth mentioning before moving on, if only briefly. The first is the God of the Gaps charge. This charge is usually not explained very well by those using it, and typically, in addition to giving the impression that there is a logical problem, the charge typically involves a straw man attack against the ID theorist and an appeal to the future, as when Darwinists say that just because something has not been explained in terms of non-intelligent causes it does not follow that it will not be. A full analysis of this charge can be saved for later. What is important to note here is that the charge is impotent against a strict theory of intelligent design for a strict theory of intelligent design does not appeal to God, but to intelligence.
> <br> But as it turns out the charge is intended for this target, i.e., intelligent agency, as well, especially when the true foundations of the charge include a positivistic view of science, which seeks to eliminate the knower from any theory of the universe and explain the animate in terms of the inanimate completely. There is no room for intelligent agency in this view. Materialistic determinism is another aspect of the foundation, assisting positivism. On this view, intelligent agency is completely determined by non-intelligent forces, not having any real causal power itself. And where materialistic determinism acts as sort of a logical explanation, and positivism acts to define what can and cannot be included in the explanation, Darwinism itself attempts to provide an historical explanation to round all of this off. We then see at the root of the God of the Gaps charge an Intelligence of the Gaps charge. And we see the basis for this in theories like Darwinism, materialistic determinism and a positivistic view of science, which all seek to explain everything without intelligent agency and intelligent causation. Needless to say, atheism is attracted to such theories because intelligent agency is better explained on a non-atheistic hypothesis, and whatever lends support to a God hypothesis is to be avoided, not just in the public schools, but in scientific research, which is easily extended to any academic activity. And, as it turns out, when these foundations for the charge are themselves equated with science and anything that opposes them is equated with religion, we return again to another example of the science-religion dichotomy. But it should be obvious that such a charge begs the very question at hand with respect to God and intelligence for it has as its foundation theories which insist on the absence of intelligent agency in explanation.
> <br> The other adjunct used in these debates is the "God would not have done it this way" charge. Of course this is related to the problem of evil that is typically put to Christian theology, and Darwinists, not being able or willing to admit the difference between intelligent design and creation science are still inclined to use this charge. But if intelligent design is not going as far as God in the inference process or starting with the Bible, then it is hard to see how such talk is directly relevant to a debate over intelligent design unless Darwinists just mean that they do not think someone with intelligence would have designed things this way. But even that claim is hardly strict science in the sense many Darwinists claim to adhere to. It is obvious that intelligent design is not ruled out by such comments. A strict theory of intelligent design does not speak to the attributes of the designer specifically. Nor does it require optimal design or complete design. Some things may have been designed. Others may have come about my non-intelligent causes. The dysteleology charge hardly rules intelligent design out, even if it counts as evidence against it, and that is not even clear. The problem of evil may be evidence against Christianity, but even if it is it does not follow that it is also evidence against intelligent design.
> <br> Before moving on, one has to wonder exactly what evolutionary biologists are wanting to teach our kids. Evolution means change. And we are talking about living things. So, living things change. This is relatively uncontroversial. Biologists do find small changes in individuals and in populations as those individuals and populations respond and adapt to changes in the environment. For instance, when exposed to drought, a bird's beak may lengthen. If that is what biologists are wanting to teach, most have little problem with it. The problems arise when biologists use the term 'evolution' equivocally and move from these simple, uncontroversial claims about small changes to claims such as these, to offer only a few:
> <br> (1) Life was generated by purely non-intelligent, non-living forces in a pre-biotic soup
> (2) God does not exist or had nothing to do with the origin of life <br> (3) Naturalism is true and science must work in accordance with naturalism
> (4) A simple cell gave rise to the diversity of life that we see today, clear up to man <br> (4) Natural selection is responsible for the generation of life
> (5) Natural selection and non-intelligent, non-living forces are responsible for intellect, or, man does not really have an intellect, but is just a bundle of nerves and brain pathways <br> (6) Man does not have a soul, but is matter only
> (7) Man is not free, but is completely determined by his environment and genes <br> (8) All activity is purposeless and ateleological. Hence, teleology has no role in explanation.
> (9) Science cannot include intelligent agency. <br>
> Indeed, many times scientists and philosophers start with a rather innocent claim about small changes which they term 'evolution' and then move from this claim to a great many others, all the while claiming to be doing science (narrowly defined). The problem that most intelligent design theorists have with evolutionary theory is not the part about small changes. The part that most design theorists do not appreciate being taught in public schools is the part that includes many other claims, such as the ones above, being smuggled in under the banner of science as though these are also specific scientific conclusions that arise from a theory of evolution, when in fact they do not. If we start with the truth of small changes in biological organisms and biological species we do not get to any of the claims above. But Darwinists want to do just that, and call it all science to get traction. <br>
> Darwinists do not want intelligent design taught in schools as a possibility, and yet they are not all that interested in clearing up exactly what the theory of evolutionary is intended to teach kids. If it is intended to teach kids the types of claims listed above, and not just that simple, small changes take place in organisms and populations of organisms, then we start to understand that some biologists and non-biologists alike are not really interesting in teaching a scientific type of evolution and stopping with that. Instead, they are interested in teaching something akin to materialism or naturalism, which is why Phil Johnson asked the right question when he asked: Is science just applied naturalism? He recognized, quite astutely, that many additional claims were being taught in the name of evolution. Do biologists really want to accept the burden of all of these additional claims? Do they really want to carry the burden of theories like atheism, methodological naturalism, materialistic determinism, and positivism, in addition to macro-evolution? Can micro-evolution really serve as the foundation for all of these additional claims? Can all of these additional claims and presuppositions really fit in the special sciences? Is the goal of Darwinism to teach all of this to our kids? <br>
> These are important questions. And indeed, it seems that Darwinism is a real force in society these days and that Darwinists are not just advocating a very limited claim about small changes in biological organisms. There is much more going on than that. And that is precisely why Darwinists have reacted so violently to the theory of intelligent design, saying that it cannot even be considered as a possibility, when in fact logic and common sense alike make it clear that intelligent design is a legitimate causal explanation for things that happen, not to mention the fact that intelligent agents have powers to bring things about that non-intelligent agents lack. <br>
> Darwinism nears the question of God and ultimate origins, and in that sense is not just an ordinary, garden variety theory. In as much as it is a theory about small changes it is relatively uncontroversial. But more often than not, Darwinism is not just about small changes, say, in the length of a beak, but about a great many small changes and about initial conditions and about the origin of those initial conditions. It becomes a theory about the origins of life, mind and person, and ultimately, about message and machine as well. In so doing, the theory becomes a theory meant to explain everything, not just logically, as we found with materialistic determinism, but historically. And to some, the theory, in as much as it is meant to explain everything, historically, becomes very much either a religion or an all encompassing over-arching philosophy that alone provides guidance to all other endeavors. And so we have Darwinists who insist that biology cannot make sense except in the light of Darwinian evolution. When push comes to shove, there is no room for intelligent design in this over-arching philosophy because there is no room for intelligence at all. Intelligent causes are exempt. Purely 'naturalistic' explanations will do, which means purely non-intelligent causes will be adequate alone. Intelligent causes are ecclipsed, reduced and denied. <br>
> All of this is defended with the tools mentioned above, the main one being the science-religion dichotomy, which is supported by and coupled with the &quot;God of the Gaps Charge&quot; and the &quot;God would not have done it that way&quot; charge.&nbsp; So long as Darwinists keep the focus on this dichotomy, they do well. This is because the science-religion dichotomy offers an ecclipsed view of the debate, and an ecclipsed and inaccurate view of many subjects for that matter. Let us look further at this. <br>
> The responses to this dichotomous argument have been interesting. Some accept it, but insist that ID is not religion, but science. Others reject the dichotomy itself. Both of these have their own respective merits. I want to suggest, however, that the sciencereligion dichotomy is not only damaging to religion, as many would readily appreciate, but that it is also damaging to philosophy. Philosophy is actually ignored in the debate when it is framed this way. ID is either religion or ID is science. Most do not consider a third alternative. Most do not consider the role of philosophy in the debate. This is not without consequences, especially if ID, or some particular arguments for intelligent design, were to find a proper place, not in science (narrowly defined) or in religion (narrowly defined), but somewhere in between the two. This somewhere in between would be neglected. And that is indeed what happens when the science/religion dichotomy is applied to the debate over intelligent design. Intelligent design either fits into religion, according to Darwinists, or it fits into science, according to design theorists. Both sides tend to forget about the third possibility.
> <br> There are two very important keys to the intelligent design debate that have as of yet not been sufficiently used. The first is that there is more than one argument in support of an intelligent design thesis. There are many arguments for ID. Some may fall into the category of religion. Some may fall into the category of science (defined narrowly). Some may fall into the category of philosophy. Darwinists and intelligent design theorists alike need to appreciate the gambit and variety of intelligent design arguments, and discuss each individually with respect to the categories of science and religion.
> <br> The second key is that the issue cannot be framed only in terms of science and religion. It must also be thought about in terms of the category of philosophy. So, the variety of arguments must then be considered not just in light of science and religion, but in light of science, religion and philosophy, at least. The implications here are important and some questions come immediately to mind. For instance:
> <br> Will the Darwinists, for example, use the tools mentioned early on in this essay with respect to philosophy, and do so explicitly? If there is to be a separation of Church and State in the schools, is there also to be a separation of State and Philosophy such that philosophical arguments cannot be taught in schools? Will the Darwinists want to say that philosophy, and not just religion, is also subjective? Will they want to explicitly and publicly denounce philosophy as a non-factual domain or as a domain that only deals with values? Will they want to deny the existence of philosophical knowledge? Will they want to talk of a war between philosophy and science, employing the war metaphor to get traction against philosophy? Will they want to say that philosophy is only about emotion, hope, fear and faith? Will they want to say that the methods of philosophy are non-empirical and thus useless? Will they want to say that whenever science and philosophy disagree, it is philosophy that must yield? Will Darwinists want to say that science can find defeaters to philosophy on a given subject, but not vice versa?
> <br> These are the types of questions that need to be answered by Darwinists. But they will only be answered if both sides overcome the over-simplified and misleading science/religion dichotomy that people on both sides have bought into, hook, line an d sinker. So long as the issue if framed in terms of this dichotomy, further progress will be limited for progress depends upon contact with reality, with knowledge and truth. Without these, progress does not happen. This applies not just to Darwinists, however. It applies to the Court (and residing judges) as well. The Court is just as guilty as the Darwinists in failing to appreciate this issue in more complete terms, i.e., in terms of philosophy, and not just science (defined narrowly) and religion (defined existentially).
> <br> If all of this sounds irrelevant or impractical, let me offer a quick example of how it might not be. Imagine a court case about whether intelligent design could be taught in the public schools or not. A judge has to decide one way or the other. Either it can or cannot be. If the issue is framed in terms of  the science/religion dichotomy, lawyers on one side will argue that ID is a religion while lawyers on the other side will argue that it is a science. The judge will weigh the evidence and attempt to decide which it is. If he decides it is a science, then it can be taught in the public school system. If he decides it is not, it cannot be taught in the public school system. But note the problem here. What if the reality is that ID is not religion or science, or only religion or science, but something in between? The judge will attempt to categorize ID, but will miss the bigger points: (1) that there are a variety of arguments for intelligent design, some of which are neither arguments from science (defined narrowly) or arguments from religion, but arguments from philosophy. So, the judge would need to decide if any of these arguments can be framed in terms of philosophy. If any can be, then an  entire ‘new’ set of questions will be before him and he will be forced to reconsider old ways of thinking about this issue.
> <br> One of the realizations from the reconsideration will be that most of the Darwinian arguments against ID and against ID being taught in the public school are irrelevant or far less significant than Darwinists and some ID theorists seem to think, either because they do not apply at all or because they only apply to certain arguments for intelligent design.
> <br> Another realization will involve a larger issue. That issue will be whether the Court will also want to employ a science/philosophy dichotomy, where each is defined positivistically. The court has gotten away with the science/religion framework because of the separation of Church and State 'clause' (which is not actually in the Constitution), but if it employs something akin to a science/philosophy dichotomy and attempts to argue that philosophy cannot be taught in public schools, on what basis will such an argument rest? The questions outlined above become quite relevant at this point. Indeed, such an argument would put the Court, if it were to follow positivistic Darwinists down this path, in a very precarious situation for the Court would have to argue against philosophy. But one can only argue against philosophy from philosophy. Ultimately, the Court would have to philosophize about such matters, in which case it would be involved in a living contradiction, not to mention the fact that all good legal decisions presuppose the truth of certain philosophical principles which the law itself is impotent to prove from law proper.
> <br> In the end, the Court and public schools must decide what exactly it is that Darwinists are wanting to teach in the name of evolutionary theory and under the banner of science. The must also take a stand, not just on theology, as they have done with the science-religion dichotomy, but also on philosophy herself. When they do, the issue will become much clearer and the hidden presuppositions will come flowing out like pus from a newly lanced abscess. Darwinism and its tools will then be up against Philosophy herself, if she is not jailed alongside theology. If she is jailed, we can ask for a justification for such a doing and appeal for a release when such a justification is not forthcoming or adequate. But if she is not jailed alongside theology, things will be seen in a new light, no longer in the limited and dim light of the science-religion dichotomy. And when this new light shines by virtue of the presence of Philosophy and philosophical knowledge, Darwinism will be seen as something akin to Marxism, no longer to be taught in the public schools as fact under the guise and protection of science, and no longer to be confused with the limited and more legitimate claims about micro-evolution or small change, which are accepted by people on both sides.