Op-Ed
Illegal Border Crossings: Evolution and Intelligent Design
Email: 
Share: 
Faculty Viewpoint
November 7, 2006 - 2:00amIt has been almost a year since Hunter Rawlings gave his important speech on intelligent design and evolution. But the issue is still being widely discussed at Cornell.
As a Christian, I believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, including human beings. At the same time I consider evolution to be the best scientific theory we currently have for explaining the origin of species, and I do not think intelligent design (“ID”) qualifies as legitimate science.
How these two assertions fit together I shall not address here. Suffice it to say that the relationship between science and religion is complex. A legitimate border separates science as a discourse from other, broader kinds of knowledge (such as theology); however, this separation is not absolute, but more like a semi-permeable membrane.
Any discussion of intelligent design and evolution in a science curriculum must consider the basic questions (1) What subject matter constitutes legitimate science? and (2) Are some pronouncements, in effect, “illegal border crossings” between science and religion? Since I believe ID is not legitimate science, including it as an integral part of a science course appears a clear case of such an illegal border crossing.
Although it certainly is appropriate for the Arts College faculty to discuss why including ID in high school science courses is improper, this concern is highly selective and perhaps a bit hypocritical. A far more serious problem at Cornell and at most universities is the many illegal border crossings that go on in the opposite direction: claims made by scientists, speaking as scientists, that are really theological, philosophical or ethical claims, rather than scientific ones.
An egregious example from the past 20-30 years was Cornell Prof. Carl Sagan’s bold declaration (the first sentence in his popular book Cosmos) that “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Whether Sagan’s claim is true or false may be debated, but it’s clear that in making it, he was not speaking properly as a scientist, but as a philosopher or theologian. Science is incompetent either to confirm or to disprove such comprehensive metaphysical or religious claims.
Modern science is “naturalistic”: it deliberately ignores moral, religious and aesthetic aspects of reality and studies the world as if nothing exists but physical phenomena. However, this is a methodological, not a metaphysical naturalism; it is adopted for the limited objectives of science, not as a total world view. Science may provide evidence that makes it easier or more difficult for a person to believe in God; but strictly speaking, the question of God’s existence or nonexistence, or how God relates to nature and human beings, is outside the domain of legitimate scientific inquiry.
Carl Sagan has by no means been the only illegal border crosser among prominent scientists and science teachers; many others constantly make the same mistake. Richard Dawkins, for instance, not only claims that Darwinian evolution entails the belief that there is no God, but proclaims this religious belief with evangelistic zeal. My friend and Cornell colleague Will Provine believes — if I understand him properly—that science teaches us that humans lack free will and thus are essentially robots (though I’m not sure he would approve this way of putting it).
Science gives us one very valuable and powerful kind of knowledge. But when scientists or others claim that it is the only valid or publicly appropriate kind of knowledge, this is scientism, not science.
At one time, the school of philosophers called logical positivists attempted to give such unique validity to scientific knowledge. They promoted the so-called “verification principle”: the claim that only knowledge resting on empirical data or sense experience constitutes valid knowledge. Of course, these philosophers overlooked the fact that the verification principle itself could not meet its own criteria for legitimacy. It is well understood today that this philosophical project failed.
Social scientists may be even more prone to illegal border crossings than natural scientists. During my 30-plus years at Cornell, I’ve frequently witnessed social scientists using the design and content of courses and public lectures to press on students and colleagues various doctrines that could not be justified by their social science as such but rested on normative religious and philosophical judgments. Examples are multiculturalism; moral relativism; non-traditional views of marriage, divorce, family, male/female roles, sexual morality, homosexuality; etc. These are big-time illegal border crossings, but sadly, Cornell’s academic culture shows little interest in curbing them. Instead, faculty self-righteously condemn high school science teachers and state boards of education for the slightest tendency to traffic in the opposite direction.
If we at Cornell really want to maintain disciplinary integrity, we might well focus on putting our own house in order. Rather than worrying so selectively about intelligent design and its failings, we might address flagrant illegal border crossings of all kinds.
Such discipline might well contribute to more open and honest dialogue across disciplines. It would also help us understand that Cornell founder A.D. White’s famous phrase “the warfare between science and theology” is at best misleading. Most conflicts we face today are not between science and theology (or religion) but between divergent moral, religious, philosophical, and political visions of what it means to flourish as human beings.
Richard A. Baer, Jr. is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Natural Resources. He can be contacted at rab12@cornell.edu. Guest Room appears periodically.
Not all "Border Crossings" are illegal
The ID proponents make scientific claims that can be easily falsified, therefore they should not be allowed, especially in school science lessons.
Neither Carl Sagan nor Richard Dawkins make such claims. They make philosophical, not scientific claims when they talk about there is no God or something. In fact, Dawkins constantly repeats that he cannot disprove God. Of course, these type of claims should not be allowed on science lessons either. But as far as I remember, neither one of them pushes their views to the schools.
Their claims indeed cannot be verified or falsified, at least at the current stage of human knowledge, and this makes them philosophical or even 'religious', but not scientific. As such they fall under 'academic freedom of expression', 'freedom of speech', and maybe even 'freedom of religion'.
So do the ID proponents' claims, as long as they do not pretend to be a 'science', and are not pushed into schools as 'science'.
So, Dawkins and Sagan "cross the border" in the same sense as many religious people do by claiming there is God and we ought to believe in Him without evidence. I don't think either claims should be labeled 'Illegal Border Crossing'.
ID is NOT religious
It is strange that, while the debate about ID is raging, very view people actually knows what it really is. Both people from the evolutionism and the creationism camp mistake ID as the politically correct name for creationism. It is not.
Creationism seeks to find physical evidence for what is written in the Bible. ID do no such thing. ID proponents, after studying naturalistic evidence, and based on that evidence alone, concluded that the origin of life required some form of intelligent intervention, as the processes of Darwinism can not explain irreducable complexity. True ID proponents - not creationists marketing themselves as ID - would never make a reference to the Bible to support their theory, nor would they discuss the identity or nature of the designer. All their theories comes from observations in the natural world, and so far, even Richard Dawkins's dismissals of these observations are less than convincing. Valid scientific arguements against evolution is simply dismissed with "we'll find the awnser in the future", and in the meantime, evolution is presented to the general public as rock solid. It is interesting to note that scientists from the East, who do not have a background in theism and creationism, is much more open to discuss and concider ID science than their western counterparts.
Arguements against ID usually reveil the confusion with Creationism. Arguements such as "ID is not science, because the designer is not available for study" is hippocritical. The evidence for design exists, despite the fact that the designer is not accessable, just like the evidence for the big bang exists, even though its causes are not available for study. If this is the reason why ID is not science, that would eliminate the Big Bang from science as well. Likewise, the arguement that the designs are poor is irrelevant and confuses ID with creationism. ID does not make any claims about the identity or nature of the designer, as that is beyond scientific scrutiny. A poor design is not proof of no design. A shack is an incredibly bad design for a house, however, it remains a design that can not come into being without a designer.
As long as scientists run a smear campaign against ID scientists, accusing them of "smuggling religion in through the back door", the general public have reason to suspect an alternative, non-scientific agenda in the evolutionist camp. I have yet to hear an valid arguement why ID is not science, as all such arguements I've heard so far, confuses it with Creationism. True ID is science, and can only be falsified by the normal scientific avenues. The problem is, that (true) ID proponents usually win their debates with evolutionists, and now evolutionists use drastic measures to "defend the faith".
To falsify ID does not mean to disprove Genesis 1, or to prove the design is bad. ID can only be falsified if it can be demonstrated that a functional, living organism can be created with purely naturalistic processes, and without any intelligent design. If life formed with purely naturalistic processes, it follows that it should be possible to create ideal circumstances in which naturally reproductive molecules will form, and these molecules will increase in complexity without intelligent interference. Indeed, a tall order.
No, ID is far from falsified, and is indeed a real scientific alternative to pure darwinism. I believe that, in order to disprove ID, a far better naturalistic theory than Darwinism is required.
ID is NOT science
It is strange that very few ID-proponents actually know what is science, how it works and how theories are constructed.
Irreductible complexity is not a valid scientific argument for two reasons:
- you can always conjecture that some elements are irreductible, but there are perhaps not yet known, so the argument is by itself not definitely refutable;
- until now, none example of irreductible complexity has been proved to be correct, so the argument is at least doubtful.
The comparison with the Big Bang theory is quite stupid. While a theory needs some support, and there is a lot of evidence for the Bib Bang concept, that does not mean that it is completely true, and it is very dangerous to speak about proofs. At best, a scientist can be convinced about the validity of a theory because it supports observations, and more important, it allows predictions. But the same events can be read later in a very different way, and the Big Bang theory is currently being challenged by theories like string theory, and cyclic universes. So while Big Bang is a scientific theory, it could be rejected. Big Bang is not accessible by direct observations, but inderect observations can support or dismiss it. On the other hand, the concept of designer can always be put in the game when we lack of understanding, so it is finally not refutable, and represent more a lack of observations than the result of observations. The Big Bang concept is refutable, and could perhaps be refutated soon. Introducting a designer is an easy way to proceed, but seems to be more lazyness than scientific work.
Darwinism, or neo-darwinism, are theories, and like any scientific theory, they do not explain everything, so there is place for further research. Perhaps the idea of evolution will be completely modified, like the Big Bang could be put away, but until now, it is the best theory to explain and predict how life is changing on Earth, while the ID approach gives very poor insight on life, and is completely unable to make some testable prediction. Therefore, the question to know if ID has something to do with religion is even not very interesting. On a scientific point of view, it does not provide any useful result.
Context is king...
As Professor Baer points out, science "studies the world as if nothing exists but physical phenomena". Why then does he object to a statement that falls within that framework?
Carl Sagan's statement about the cosmos may be viewed as poetic commentary on the metaphysical, but it's also a valid (though simplified) scientific definition. Is it really an 'illegal border crossing' to be a bit poetic when giving a valid definition?
Richard Dawkins' views on religion aren't part of any curriculum, they're personal beliefs, expressed in a legitimate setting. What border has he crossed?
The answer is simple; he's rejected NOMA - and folks like Professor Baer depend on NOMA to safeguard their religious beliefs.
NOMA (Nonoverlapping Magisteria) is the notion that science and religion each have their own domain and caution needs to be exercised by both scientists and clergy to avoid leaving their domain. In truth, NOMA is a red herring used to protect religious claims from critical examination. The dividing line is an illusion that shifts as human knowledge and understanding shifts. What was once considered obviously within the domain of religion is now clearly within the domain of science - because any claim that can be scientifically examined, will be.
Professor Baer uses NOMA as a shield while sniping at opinions and comments with which he disagrees. Fortunately, his aim is off and his shield is little more than thin air.
I like the majority of what
I like the majority of what you have written here; I think you make some excellent points. Scientists and philosophers can and occasionally do overstep their proper boundaries, as theists often do; your use of the term "illegal border crossings" is quite poignant.
However, I take exception with your specific criticism of the first sentence of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." When he says, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be,” he is simply DEFINING the word "cosmos." And you will note that there is nothing in that definition to say that God, if he exists, would not also be considered part of the cosmos. The word "cosmos" simply means and encompasses EVERYTHING, up to and including God.
Whatever "illegal border crossings" Dr. Sagan may have committed, I do not think this is one of them at all.
~David D.G.
Reply to David D.G comment
David D.G.,
I'm glad you liked most of what I wrote. Regarding Carl Sagan's statement that "[t]he cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be," I agree that he seems to be giving us a definition. As an atheist, he believes it is a true claim. As a Christian, I consider it to be false. In either case, it is a philosophical/theological claim, not a scientific claim. How could science possibly produce evidence either to confirm or disprove Sagan's statement? Jews and Christians believe that God exists outside the cosmos, indeed that he is the Creator of the entire cosmos or universe, including human beings.
Many scientists and others do not seem to understand that science itself rests on a variety of assumptions and commitments that it can neither prove nor disprove in any strict scientific sense. A few of these would be (1) Scientists ought to tell the truth about their data and experimental designs. (2) The laws of nature do not arbitrarily shift over time, say every 5 million years or so. (3) the laws of nature are uniform through the entire universe. (4) There is an external world, i.e., the world is not just a projection of my own mind (in other words, the theory of solipsism is false). (5) The human mind is capable of understanding nature, i.e., nature is intelligible. (6) Time is essentially linear rather than circular.
It's interesting that these assumptions did not arise from science itself but came mostly from Greek philosophy and Jewish and Christian theology and Biblical thinking. For further thoughts on the meaning of the term "cosmos" and the even more complex term "nature," see my article "'Cosmos', Cosmologies, and the Public Schools," This World, Spring/Summer 1983, pp. 5-17. It discusses Carl Sagan's view at some length.
God as part of the cosmos
Hanno on this website is correct in his comments about ID. Most who try and post about this hypothesis do not understand it and misrepresent it.
Many who post these days on this subject in fact do not know who the Trinitarian God is. As a result they have no understanding about how Christianity and science actually relate. Science is secondary to God as He is the one who designed the laws that science studies. Science can only study what is materially created, not spiritually created. A good spiritual example is understanding the immaterial mind or intellect. Science cannot touch this, but philosophy can. Some say philosophy is secondary to science, but it is not. Science can tell you how to build an atomic bomb, but it cannot tell you whether to use it or not. Science cannot tell a person his purpose for being here on earth. There are many things science cannot answer and never will be able to answer. Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing that science is all there is when in fact it is only one part of of the "whole" that demonstrates who humans in fact are.
David D.G.'s comments demonstrate an ignorance about God. To say He is part of the cosmos shows this. God is outside what He creates, as a carpenter is outside the house he builds. The carpenter is not part of the house. I wonder what David really knows about theology. Actually Christian theology is one of the most intellectual subjects you can discuss. The problem is most who criticize and discuss Christian theology is in fact ignorant about it. Many who go to church for worship do not even know why they believe its doctrine. Many do not even know what doctrine is. It is really sad but no matter what people think, they will one day have to face God at death. Then they can give Him their excuses for not understanding while their past dead conscience is awakened to sin and the truth. This awakening of the conscience will shock them.
Lastly, Carl Sagan was an atheistic materialist and it is clear what he meant. He was clueless and in denial about the Supernatural. He has now met his Maker and found out the consequences. It is sad so many educated persons have scales over their eyes about Christ, which they put there themselves. In Romans, Paul the Apostle stated about the over educated and prideful, "professing themselves wise, they became fools". Only Christ can help persons understand God, but only when they call upon Him for salvation and implanation of the Spirit.
Response to Matt Dillahunty
In response to Matt Dillahunty's comments:
Regarding what you refer to as "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," your claim that I accept such a theory is mistaken. Jews believe that God delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and Christians believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. These are claims about what God did in the world, the same world of nature that scientists study. Jews and Christians also believe that God hears and answers their prayers, prayers made in time and space, i.e. in the real world.
The question of how God does this is complex, as I noted in my article--indeed too complex to respond to in a forum such as this. Actually, to be candid, the short answer is that Christians don't know very much about how God acts in the world of time and space apart from what he has revealed of himself in history and in the Bible. In any case, it might be helpful to note that in most cases conflict is not between science and religion but rather between conflicting philosophical and theological beliefs held, say, by atheists and theists.
Without question, evolutionary biology has required Christians to do some hard thinking about their understanding of creation in the book of Genesis. Nonetheless, the problems are not all on the side of the theist. For instance, when various neuroscientists today want to argue that humans are simply complex biochemical machines and that free will is simply an illusion--a claim that is basically philosophical or religious, not scientific--they face the very difficult question of what "truth" or "moral responsibility" might mean in such a framework. Are there "true" chemical reactions in the brain and also "false" chemical reactions? Perhaps, but I do not quite know what that would mean. Or do moral actions entail a different kind of chemistry than immoral actions? But because of belief in the existence of a personal God, defining what is meant by terms like "true," "good," and "right" is not nearly as difficult for the theologian.
One last thought: It's really too bad that in spite of all our rhetoric about diversity, Cornell provides students little help in thinking about such interesting and important issues.
Despite Baer's seemingly
Despite Baer's seemingly one-way semi-permeable border (somehow he didn't get around to criticizing theistic scientists like Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne who claim that scientific evidence supports their theology), science most certainly should have a voice on questions of morality and public policy. Moral decisions should be informed by a solid understanding of relevant science. For example, science shows that consumption of lead is bad for developing brains. This informs public policy decisions on use of lead in gasoline and paint. Another example: scientific inquiry into the effects of fallout and "nuclear winter" tells us that previous thinking illegitimately overestimated the possibility and quality of survival which would follow worldwide nuclear war. Threfore, despite Bill Freeman's objections, science has a voice in moral decisions about whether we should use those bombs science helped to invent.
Meanwhile, Baer has made no case at all for why questions of morality should lie within the borders of religion.
Response to Hanno
ID, born out of the ashes of "creation science" and without a shred of scientific evidence, is "indeed a real scientific alternaitve to pure darwinism," despite evolution being one of the most robustly proven theories of science.
For my part, I forgive those non-science laypersons who do not understand the philosophy of science or the necessity of naturalistic approaches to the study of science - they only know their comfortable religious views. Who can blame them? - if they're not scientists, they have little reason to actually examine scientific fact. It's sad, but true.
And how many times must the entire breadth of experts, who are actively studying science and publishing results, remind the public that evolution is as universally supported theory as gravity?
As John Derbyshire said in the National Review Online a couple months ago, Hanno's claims are the equivalent to walking into a room full of pilots and aerospace engineers, during the Golden Age of Flight in the 1930's, and saying "You know, those things don't fly..."
Kudos to Richard for reminding us of Hunter Rawlings speech, which took a local stand for academic integrity.
"Border Crossings"
OK here is a methodologically naturalistic, testable proposition.
Even if any "god" exists, that god is not detectable.
Unless disproven then "god" remains undetected, and therefore, at the very best, completely irrelevant.
Membranes and situational logic
Dr. Baer,
It may be nice and cozy to exempt religion from deductive logic, naturalism, and the scientific method, but why does your "semi-permeable membrane" have any logical basis?
You criticize Sagan for making speculations, which were based on natural philosophy and the current state of human knowledge. Are his assertions inappropriate in any way, other than their opposition with religion? If you'd argue that he should have left it at "I don't know" on the issue of the origin of the cosmos, you wouldn't be so bad off, if only religion would be held to the same standard. But even then, Sagan appears to be making a simple observation about the apparently natural order of the Universe, absent of a God, which certainly fits with objective assessments of the cosmos.
Similarly, on what basis do religious scholars claim that "free will" is a divine gift, and what do you think of modern cognitive science? I would argue that a combination of nature and nurture robustly explains human psychology, and neuronal plasticity accounts for our ability to change from habits formed by nature and nurture. How we recognize when to break from habit is unclear, to be sure, but why do you suppose that this is instead a divinely given capability?
Scientism it may be (although I chose the word naturalism), but the situational logic that you espouse seems highly flawed, methinks.
Best Regards,
Dan Rhoads
http://migration.wordpress.com