Philosophic essay Example

  • Category:
    Philosophy
  • Document type:
    Essay
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    1660

8PHILOSOPHIC ESSAY

PHILOSOPHIC ESSAY

Is intelligent design theory a scientific theory? Does it make predictions? Is Darwinism a scientific theory? Does is make testable predictions?

Introduction

Intelligent design is defined by Dembski (2002) as a program for scientific research and a community of scholars such as philosophers as well as scientists who search for nature design evidence. The intelligent design theory argues that particular attributes of living things and of the universe and are well described by an intelligent basis, and not a process that is undirected like natural selection. Importantly, through the analysis as well as study of the components of a system, a design theorist can establish whether diverse structures in the nature are an artefact of possibility, intelligent design, or natural law. This study is carried out by observing the forms of information generated when agents of intelligent take action. Scientists afterwards aspire to look for objects which encompass those similar forms of informational properties which usually surface from intelligence. Intelligent design enthusiasts maintain that it stands on equivalent foothold with the present scientific theories concerning the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life. The scientific community acknowledge this assertion and of importance intelligent design (ID) does not comprise a program for research in the biological science. Even if ID from time to time is commonly referred to as Intelligent Design Theory, Luskin (2011) posits that ID is not acknowledged as a scientific theory; instead the scientific community has pigeonholed it as creationist pseudoscience. The philosophic essay seeks to ascertain whether intelligent design theory is a scientific theory and also whether Darwinism is a scientific theory.

Discussion

According to Luskin (2011), intelligent design is a scientific theory that uses the techniques usually utilised by other past sciences to conclude that particular attributes of living things as well as of the universe are well elaborated by an intelligent cause.  Intelligent design theorists claim that design may be surmised by examining the natural objects’ informational properties to establish if they tolerate the form of information that stem from an intelligent cause. The scientific technique as per Luskin (2011) is normally explained as a four-step process, which comprises assumption, experiments, observations, as well as conclusion. In this regard, proponents of ID argue that ID is a scientific theory because it starts with the observation, wherein agents of intelligent generate complex and specified information (CSI). What’s more, Design theorists presume that in case of a naturally designed object, there will be high CSI levels. Subsequently, scientists carry out experimental examinations upon natural objects to establish if they have information that is specified and complex. Therefore, irreducible complexity is one by far testable form of CSI, which as mentioned by Dembski (2002) can be tested through reverse-engineering biological structures by means of tests such as genetic knockout to find out if they need each of its parts to perform effectively. Therefore, when an irreducible complexity is uncovered empirically by the scientists in a biological structure, they always conclude that it was designed.

Dembski (2002, p.24) posits that if ID theory is a feasible substitute to evolutionary theory, in that case scientists have to be utilising it to set up tests as well as to understand patterns in the collected data. Antagonists of the scientific feasibility of ID hold the view that it does not offer the vital aspect of all factual scientific theories, which is predictability. They further argue that since ID cannot be utilised to make certain predictions, which can afterward be either falsified or verified through experiment or observation, it is for that reason not a scientific theory, even if it may still be acknowledged as a theological or philosophical theory. On the other hand, critics for ID theory argue that natural selection does provide predictability and have to be acknowledged as real science. Besides that, studies such as that of Dembski (2002) has revealed that ID is the most excellent causal justification for Life origin as well as origin of complex and specified information (CSI) in the DNA. Still scores of scholars disapprove the scientific nature of this argument, and instead, they argue that ID is not scientific since the theory is not testable and fails to provide any predictions akin to other scientific theories. However, Luskin (2011) disagree to agree with these critics by claiming that ID akin to other historical scientific theories can be testable through comparing the descriptive influence of challenging hypotheses against facts that are already knowledgeable. ID akin to other scientific theories, as well provides predictions that is testable or observable given that the ID makes arguments concerning the origin of life, and also it has inferences on how the future life would look like.

On the subject of testability, intelligent design makes some of testable predictions as highlighted below: firstly is the Astronomy/Cosmology predication, whereby ID predicts origin of the universe, and also predicts a rise in the number of finely-tuned parameters relevant to the constants as well as laws of physics. Secondly are the biological predictions, whereby ID predicts the existence of certain complexity amongst living systems, and also predicts that complexity in biology will increase with time with information having progressively more central role in the life’s operations governance. What’s more, ID predicts a heightening proof for the non-sufficiency of the DNA-centric perception of living systems. Finally, ID predicts the existence of irreducible complexity in relation to macromolecular organelles as well as systems.

Different from theories of biological theories and physics, Charles Darwin’s Evolution theory has long been hardly argued in socio-political arenas. Even these days, evolution theory is not frequently taught in schools in spite of the fact that evolution is the connecting force of every biological research. According to Rennie (2008), evolution is the combining matter, and in paleontology, it offers employees an influential method to put in order the past life remains as well as to better comprehend the at least one life history. The thought history concerning Darwinism generally as well as contributions of paleontology particularly is time and again valuable to the modern workers. Akin to any iterative process, science draws significantly from its olden times. Darwinism as mentioned by Hutcheson (1986) is not a scientific theory, for the reason that it is not falsifiable or testable. Furthermore, Darwinism makes arguments concerning occurrences that were non-observable and can by no means be re-designed. This coverlet Evolution dismissal fails to pay important attention to differences that split the field into at least two fields: macroevolution as well as microevolution. In this regard, microevolution observes changes in the species, and these are changes that preludes to speciation, the new species origin. On the other hand, macroevolution examines how groups in taxonomy on top of the species level change. Macroevolution evidence often arises from the DNA as well as fossil record comparisons to reconstruct how a range of organisms can be associated. Evolution critics argue that it has no scientific-based evidence or facts and for that reason, it is not a scientific theory. Therefore, scientists must have belief to suppose that evolution is factual. Science is referred to as practical as well as intellectual activity including the systematic research of the behaviour as well as the structure of the natural and physical world by means of experiment and observation. Given that there is no scientific testable and observable proof to support Darwinism, then Hutcheson (1986) thinks that evolution theory was simply a figment of the imagination. Science is based on testable facts, repeatable as well as observable evidence of verified theories, and so it is not based on hypotheses.

According to Hutcheson (1986), the testability of scientific concepts through predictions concerning realism is a preferred subject amongst the atheists as well as Darwinists. Advocates of Intelligent design maintain that their Darwinism idea is experimentally testable, but the creationists from time to time disagree arguing that the evolution theory is not testable and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Without doubt this is an astonishing assertion, given that creationists as well argue that the Darwinism is not well-matched with the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, in case Darwinism was excluded by the second law, in that case proof that substantiates the second law will disconfirm the evolution theory. And if there is probability to disconfirm evolution theory, then Darwinism is testable and so can make predictions. Still Darwinism fails to make testable predictions, but it can make predictions concerning the evolution of variety within the favourable circumstances (Rennie, 2008)
. However, it is barely likely to explain in broad terms what favourable circumstances are apart from the fact that, in their presence, various forms can surface.Conclusion

In conclusion, it has been argued that the intelligent design theory has a number of precedents and largely fits into the creationism philosophy. However, different from other arguments presented by creationists, it is above all rooted in scientific arguments which both indicate inconsistencies in Darwinism. Intelligent design proponents view it as a remedy to the materialist and godless trends in modern society and science in addition to an acceptable conflation of spiritualism as well as science. The enormous mainstream of the scientific community is against intelligent design, and critics maintain that ID is rooted in substandard scientific claims and also that it tries to merge religion as well as science. Based on the presented arguments neither intelligent design theory nor Darwinism is a scientific theory since they do not have testable evidence bearing in mind science is based on testable evidence and observational facts.

References

Dembski, W.A., 2002. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Illinois : InterVarsity Press.

Hutcheson, P., 1986. Evolution and Testability. [Online] Available at: http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability [Accessed 7 July 2014].

Luskin, C., 2011. How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific «Theory»? [Online] Available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/how_do_we_know_intelligent_des051841.html [Accessed 7 July 2014].

Rennie, J., 2008. What are the testable predictions of Darwin’s theory of evolution? [Online] Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dynamic-darwinism/ [Accessed 7 July 2014].