Hey hey hey!! How much does religion affect MIT?

molliebatmit
Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:49:44 +0000

I do agree that the definition of science is sociological, but I stand by my characterization of intelligent design/creationism as nonscience on many levels. In a fundamental sense, it’s not just that ID is not falsifiable, but that ID appeals to an agency outside the laws of science – it’s nonnaturalistic.



Ben:

Indeed, the sociological definition is the only one that’s going to work. ID does make empirically testable claims and predictions (about the nonoccurence of certain kinds of evolution on certain timescales under certain experimental conditions) and has a peer-reviewed literature.

But those are not predictions about ID, they’re predictions about evolution. ID itself is not falsifiable, and falsifying evolution would not be evidence in favor of ID. (I also think it’s disingenuous to refer to ID’s sole scientific publication as “a peer-reviewed literature”.)

It’s true that science is a club, but ID isn’t accepted not because its proponents aren’t members of the club – it’s not accepted because it’s not supported by the evidence, and therefore, those denialists who cling to it passionately are not in the club. In the same way, people who deny other amply supported phenomena (that HIV causes AIDS, for example), are widely ridiculed, even if they’re already members of the club fully endowed with all the rights and privileges thereof (Kary Mullis).

There may be a smudgy line that divides what we consider science from what we consider nonscience. ID is not anywhere near that smudgy line.