Okay, here's my own argument scenario.
In many discussions I've had with people against the very idea of ID, I've come up with this idea:
It's simple to scientifically investigate whether or not the universe is "designed." It's just a matter of coming up with criteria for "design." It can't be done, they say, because we are merely extrapolating our own ideas of what constitutes "design" and imposing them on the universe, the same way we might anthropomorphize an animal.
Let's make the search a little bit more general.
How about criteria for "artificiality"?
If we can define criteria for what is "artificial" as opposed to "natural" then at least we can begin to ascertain whether or not the universe as a whole fits into "artificial" or "natural." As it is, proponents of both sides of the argument presuppose one or the other according to their own intuition--"It's just natural because that's all there is," or "It's designed because it just must be--I can tell!"
But there is no criteria for artificiality. Indeed, many definitions of the word "artificial" contain the condition of being "made by humans." Since we did not create the universe (unless, of course, you subscribe to some very outlandish anthropic principles), then the universe cannot be artificial, by definition.
It is that definition, then, that handcuffs science. Here is where my scenario comes in.
Imagine some astronauts from earth coming across what appears to be an alien artifact in outer space. It could be a spaceship--it has some strange markings on it and appears to have a means of propulsion.
Is it artificial? Is it natural?
By what criteria do we determine the answer to these questions? Is "artificiality" like art? I just "know it when I see it"?
If scientists can come up with criteria for artificiality, then is it "outside the realm of science" to apply those criteria to the universe as a whole? And if not, then in this scenario do we just (once again) throw up our hands and say, "We cannot begin to ascertain if this artifact is 'artificial' or 'natural.' It's outside the realm of science"?
The pursuit of science is handcuffed. It must be able to answer that question. If it can answer that question, then it can (and should attempt to) answer the same question about the universe.
6 comments:
Saying something is artificial is not a scientific hypothesis any more than saying something is natural is one.
To be scientific a hypothesis must make predictions. That doesn't mean we cannot allow the possibility of design in explaining artifacts or the universe. But it does mean that we need to specify more information about the designer.
Saying some unknown being designed X is not a scientific hypothesis.
Saying a group of nomads designed X, created it using technology Y for the purpose Z is a scientific hypothesis.
Consider the case of an apparent alien artifact. Positing the existence of an alien race trying to reach the stars with the technologies of space exploration that created the artifact to visit other planets is a scientific hypothesis.
That hypothesis then has to contend with other artificial and natural origin hypotheses. So Intelligent design of creatures on earth is not a scientific hypothesis but that doesn't mean that Alien design of creatures on earth for purposes X using technology Y isn't a scientific hypothesis.
To answer the question is X artificial I guess you just need to take all the theories proposed categorise them (artificial origin or natural) throw out all those theories that don't match the data, weigh the theories up against each other to decide which group of theories is most likely. If you don't have much evidence that might be very hard!
In conclusion saying a very powerful being did it is not a scientific explanation. I want to here why that being did it, how that being did it (at least what sort of technologies even if not specifications of them) and how to make predictions based on the assumption that the being did it.
You're right...saying "a very powerful being did it" is not scientific at all. But you can't ask the next questions without the possibility that "a very powerful being did it"--something most scientists are not willing to allow right now.
Thanks for your response.
How is it at all important *why* X was done? Since when were teleological concerns *scientific*? "God created the universe" seems like a hypothesis to me.
But, this might be because I'm a scientific skeptic. I don't actually believe that science gets us any answers. Rather, it gets us useful ways to get around in the world. Science and technology, to me, are the same thing. It's an epistemological worry, mostly; I can't see how any scientific inquiry gets us *knowledge* as opposed to *belief*.
The question isn't "why" at all, but "how."
Right. I was responding to barnaby's comment:
"In conclusion saying a very powerful being did it is not a scientific explanation. I want to here why that being did it..."
In a nutshell, the terms 'artificial' and 'natural' are merely designations that we humans have arbitrarily assigned to things that we deem to fit those categories. Man does not really make anything, he just transforms the appearance of what already exists.
Post a Comment