I participate in an email list concerning intelligent design, on which there’s been an interesting discussion about whether ID presupposes a positivist epistemology. I think that it often does.
By “positivism” I mean a philosophical / epistemological position according to which knowledge is authentic only if it is measurable and empirically verifiable — i.e., only if it is derived from the scientific method. See a Wiki here. It seems to me that ID often accepts this assumption by proposing, at least implicitly, that the doctrine of creation is in some sense measurable and emprically verifiable. The presense of specified complex information, for example, is supposed to be a filter through which we can empirically verify the activity of a creator. If not for some concession to positivism, however, why would we even need such an empirical filter?
The Bible says “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19), which I take to mean that all of creation reflects God’s glory. God is revealed in all of creation, apart from any specific scientific test we might propose for deducing his activity in some aspect of creation. Indeed, the pursuit of such a particular scientific test is misguided. The test is simply everything that exists.
I think this is different than the question of evidential apologetics. I would disagree with many opponents of ID who suggest that the creation we observe is as compatible with atheism as it is with theism. I think this stance is correct only if we’re back to presupposing a postivitist epistemology. If we presuppose positivism, then I think its correct that the existence of God can’t be “proven” one way or the other. But if the sense of wonder, longing and awe we feel when we reflect on the creation around us is more than some kind of reductionist biological / evolutionary impulse — if, as C.S. Lewis might put it, our experience of the numinous points to a reality outside our ordinary perception — then the positivistic atheist is merely dulling his senses when he denies the creator. As Romans 1 puts it, “their thinking [becomes] futile and their foolish hearts [are] darkened” concerning the knowledge of God.
Therefore, to a mind not entirely bound by a presupposition against the knowledge of God, the “ordinary” processes of creation seem reducible to physical laws and chance. It is only as grace begins to melt that futility and darkness that the evidences we can provide in support of the faith start to make sense. (Unlike very strict Calvinist presuppositionalists, I believe common grace plays an important role here and that glimpses of the numinous aren’t limited to the elect.) But it seems to me that the sorts of evidences we can provide are not taken from the positivist’s toolbox in the form of particular mathematical filters and proofs. They are rather the witness of all of creation, seen through the spectacles of faith. (For a good essay exploring some of these themes, see Michael Hanby, Reclaiming Creation in a Darwinian World, Theology Today 62(2006): 476-83).
4 replies on “Intelligent Design and Positivism”
“It seems to me that ID often accepts this assumption by proposing, at least implicitly, that the doctrine of creation is in some sense measurable and emprically verifiable. The presense of specified complex information, for example, is supposed to be a filter through which we can empirically verify the activity of a creator. If not for some concession to positivism, however, why would we even need such an empirical filter?”
Which ID proponents would say this (that we need ID to make knowledge of God authentic)? Do any say that if it can’t be shown scientifically then it isn’t knowledge? Honestly, I’m not aware of any. I’m quite sure that Dembski, for example, has said the exact opposite – that he would believe in God whether ID was a good scientific theory or not (unfortunately at the moment I don’t remember where he said this). The mere fact of trying to empirically show something to be the case doesn’t imply positivism (otherwise every scientist would be a positivist!).
Macht — I’m not suggesting that ID advocates have said they are accepting positivism, and I agree that Dembski in particular proposes a much more nuanced epistemology. However, I think that when ID is offered as a sort of “strong” program for supplying evidence of a designer / God, it implicitly accepts a quasi-positivist paradigm.
You said: The mere fact of trying to empirically show something to be the case doesn’t imply positivism (otherwise every scientist would be a positivist!).
True, but the question is the relative value placed on those empirical propositions vis-a-vis other propositions. I would argue that the intellectual climate of institutional science today is overwhelmingly positivist — that only empirical propositions are accorded any real value. I think ID as an apologetic strategy often inherently accepts that ground rule and then attempts to supply empirical propositions demonstrating the existence of the designer / God in order to satisfy them. I also think ID accepts that ground rule in an effort to satisfy U.S. constitutional law about what can be taught in public schools. IMHO, this strategy gives too much away.
Note, though, that I’m not by any means against design arguments. In my view, the creation screams “design.” But I take this as design with a small “d,” a manifestation of creativity, beauty and purpose, rather than the more specific presence of some particular clue or filter that stands out as designed against the backdrop of the rest of creation.
I agree that science, in general, is still overly positivistic. The idea of methodological naturalism – a method that is independent of any metaphysics – seems directly related to positivistic ideas, for example. This is why ID as metascience – a starting point for science, rather than a conclusion of science – wouldn’t be accepted by scientists. And ID, insofar as it would try to “play by the rules” of science, would be just as positivistic.
I submit that Intelligent Design = Epistemological Suicide. Consider my arguments carefully. The following quotation is from a leading ID supporter:
“Creationism starts with the Bible, and asks, What does the Bible say about science? That is a perfectly valid inquiry, just as we ask what the Bible implied for politics or the arts or any other field. But it is not the way to do apologetics. In speaking to a non-Christian culture, we must start with data that our audience finds credible. Thus, Intelligent Design theory does not begin with the Bible – it begins with the scientific data and asks, Does the data itself give evidence of an intelligent cause? It makes the case that design can be detected empirically.”
Nancy R. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL; Crossway, 2004), pg. 415 note 70.
I am particularly concerned with the phrase, “we must start with data that our audience finds credible.” After almost two decades, it is clear that ID is still considered a joke by the overwhelming majority of professional scientists – they absolutely do not find the design inference credible (some are gracious enough to grant it legitimate philosophical status, but recognize that it falls short of a scientific doctrine).
Paul says that all men are without excuse because all of creation declares the handiwork of the creator. Do we really need a scientific investigation to find emperical evidence of God’s hand? Do we really want to give science that kind of power? If general revelation will not convince a hardened atheist to put thier trust in Christ, then neither will the bacterial flagellum. In fact, such “pseudo-miracles” take our focus off of the miracle of Christ’s death and resurrection (which is central to the Gospel) and redirects people’s attention to the “more objective” miracles of design in nature (which is irrelavent to the gospel). Who are we kidding?
Consider the next sentence from the above quote: “Thus, Intelligent Design theory does not begin with the Bible – it begins with the scientific data and asks, Does the data itself give evidence of an intelligent cause?”
I have real problem with this. The theology of creation, that God brought the cosmos into existence from nothing, and thus sovereignly sustains and upholds its very existence, is the very foundation of scientific naturalism. It is the epistemologial foundation for an intelligable universe, and without it science would be impossible, and all scientific conclusions would be irrational. Thus, all knowledge – whether naturalistic or transcendent – begins and ends with the Word of God.
So why would we throw this powerfull argument away by intentionally removing the Bible as both the foundation of knowledge and the basis for an intelligable universe, and replace it with empericism? We are selling our birthright for a bowl of soup! Once we do this, we have agreed to the terms of the materialists – and have already lost the debate.
In summary: rather than start with the transcendent truth of God as revealed in the Holy Bible and build a Theology of Creation that serves as the foundation for all scientific inquiry, ID starts with the tentative truth of science, modifies it to allow supernatural causality, then tries to establish scientific proofs for God, creation, and the Bible. And this is supposed to convince the world to believe in Christ by faith? I completely understand the motivation here (to give creationism the appearence of scientific dogma), but scientific evidence for God and creation is no substitute for a lack of faith. Even if Christ were to appear in the flesh and perform miracles, the world would simply dismiss it as a hoax.
The tactics of ID completely overlook the fallen human condition. Even worse, by handing science the authority to establish or falsify the transcendent spiritual truths of the Christian religion, ID effectively commits epistemological suicide. Do we think for a minute that the enemies of theism won’t gladly accept this challenge? Once Christians agree to these terms, they’ve already lost the debate.
I’m not impugning the motives of ID supporters, but I think they need to carefully consider the uninteneded consequences of their actions.
http://www.beyondthefirmament.com
GJG