Creation engineering: an evolving debate
I received a number of replies to my “Creation engineering” editorial in the January issue (see Electronic Products , Jan. 2006, p. 7 ) in which I argued that “Intelligent Design” does not qualify as science. Many of these took issue with several points I made�both actual and perceived. Here's a sampling of some of the comments, including my own follow-up comments:
Some of you took issue with January's editorial on the nature of science, evolution, and Intelligent Design.
I know many electrical engineers who are quite comfortable with the idea of Intelligent Design. After all, they are designers themselves.
I don't doubt that there are engineers comfortable with the idea of Intelligent Design�my grandfather perhaps would have even been one of them. But believing in an idea and claiming that it qualifies as a scientific theory are two very different things.
Evolution isn't a proven fact – it's a theory.
Nowhere did I suggest that evolution was a proven fact, or that science is about indisputable proofs. Evolutionary theory isn't perfect (what scientific theory is?), but it does qualify as science�the very nature of which is that of uncertainty.
Evolution doesn't qualify as science for exactly the same reasons you list for Intelligent Design. It isn't testable.
Evolution is indeed testable in that it enables predictions to be made based on the theory, and it is falsifiable. For example, it can and has been used to predict the findings of certain fossilized evidence, as well as higher mutation rates of bacteria and viruses in certain environments, among other things.
While this by no means constitutes proof, it does demonstrate the theory's inherent scientific basis. And evolution is inherently falsifiable in that it is possible for evidence to come to light that refutes it by providing a better scientific explanation.
Intelligent Design doesn't meet these criteria. Inferring an “unknown” designer to explain aspects of the world around us not only does not offer any predictive capabilities in any sort of scientific sense, but is based on an inherently subjective premise – that of a cosmic creator – which cannot be refuted by objective evidence.
Both evolution and creationism basically have the same level of falsifiability�in order to prove that one is false, the other must be proved to be true.
I disagree. Evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of a creator. It may seem by implication to exclude the input of a conscious agent in the process of change (although who's to say that such a creator's design approach couldn't appear to be “random”), but it doesn't – and can't – exclude the possibility of such an agent setting such events in motion.
Regarding Occam's Razor, how can you say evolution offers a simpler explanation than Intelligent Design?
Occam's Razor requires that a theory make no more assumptions than necessary, which isn't the same as saying “the simplest explanation is the best.” From a scientific perspective, adding a creator to explain “existence” is an unnecessary assumption when attempting to explain the evidence. Not only does it not address the existing questions that science might hope to answer, it creates additional new questions, some of which are beyond the realm of science.
Dude – get yourself a web blog for this stuff!
We have one. It's at http://eebeat.com. There you'll find a more complete follow-up on this topic. To publicly comment on this editorial, click on the “comments” link at the bottom of the post titled Creation engineering? – The nature of science, evolution,and Intelligent Design.
R. Pell
Advertisement
