The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 2

I started a series on a resource at IDNet which attempts to make a case for including ID as one acceptable theory of origins.  ID is not creationism as it makes no connections whatever to the Genesis account either in its assumptions nor its conclusions.  Nevertheless, ID has been tossed out of the public sphere by the courts on several occasions for failing to comply with the assumption that all things can be explained in terms of natural law alone. 

The second point of the IDNet statement of objectives is:

"The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive2 reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation."

Again, it is helpful to break the statement down.  Origins explanations use a form of abductive reasoning.  According to the footnote:

…abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations.  Key word there is “likely”.  We are talking about probabilities, not certainties.  This point is missed and often obscured by the Darwinist side.  No one disagrees that natural selection occurs.  That is something that can be placed in the category of “fact”.  At question is whether the inferences made regarding the power of natural selection to sufficiently explain massive transformations from the first cell to the human eye can also be categorized as “fact”.

 Current scientific observations, the statement continues…

…lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation.

"Best current explanation".  Such a statement ought to be acceptable even to evolutionists.  They are always saying the findings of science are tentative and constantly under revision. Reading Judge Overton’s Arkansas decision, one central tenet of science is supposed to be “Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.”  But, even more to the point, in the case of events that occurred prior to recorded history, science’s conclusions can only be inferred from current data based on specific assumptions.  The phrase “not compelled by experimental confirmation” is quite descriptive.  

The IDNet statement does allow for experimental confirmation of theoretical possibilities.

"Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared."

Note again the words “plausibilities” and “historical hypotheses”.  History is a great analogy.  We know from archaeology that certain ancient cultures existed.  We have confirmation of the existence of various individuals in each culture.  Yet historians spend hours and hours arguing about why certain individuals did specific things or why certain events happened and about their significance. 

No ancient areas of study have a fraction of the textual documentation that exists for the early Christian church, yet we still have historians arguing that Gnosticism was a legitimate “alternative” Christianity unfairly shoved aside by early church leaders and others arguing that Gnosticism was a greek heresy that had nothing in common with what the founders of Christianity actually taught.  If we can’t settle debates about written history, how in the world can we say conclusions built from bone fragments and are beyond challenge?

The statement’s point here is that science is impoverished when the challenge of alternative plausibilities is censored.  And the thing that makes ID implausible to many is simply the fact that ID does not assume naturalism.

"While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation."

There is an old Jewish Rabbinical proverb as I recall that says, “teach thy tongue to say ‘I do not know’”.  Is there anything wrong with saying we don’t have a definitive answer about what happened 4.6 billion years ago?  Is there anything wrong with saying, “IF” we start with assumption A and infer from data points B,C and D, then it is plausible that Z is the result, but that the initial premises cannot be verified?  And conversely, if we start with assumption T and infer from data points B, C and D we may come to a radically different conclusion?

Of course ID has a set of assumptions as well – the key assumption being simply that natural phenomena may have an intelligent cause and not a random, materialistic one.  Assumptions – starting points we all must have – should not be the basis for insisting on only a single conclusion and excluding all others.  That ought to be a reasonable starting point.  I find for those committed to Darwinism, even those who identify themselves as Christians, it is not.