I just read this article on Fox News’ website. It’s about Intelligent Design. The article on the whole is fairly good, but I did disagree with a portion of it. Here’s the letter I sent to the author of the article.
Hello Father John,
I read your article about Intelligent Design on the Fox News website. Although I agree with a great deal of what you said, I am writing this in response because I think you still have a flawed presupposition which ultimately brings you to the wrong conclusion. You wrote:
“Unlike thinkers of ages past, who intertwined gracefully some elements of philosophy with the natural sciences, today we prefer — for reasons of method — to separate one from the other.”
The problem with this is that the idea to separate “philosophy” from “science” is nonsensical. It is impossible to separate the two because the scientific method is (by definition) a philosophy of method. It is a philosophy of epistemology, a philosophy of how we can determine what we know. Therefore, to make the dichotomy between science and philosophy is to have a flawed (and self-contradictory) presupposition. Remember, you wrote: “Hint: any time you see an ‘ism’ there’s a philosophy behind it.” I merely have to point out: empiricism.
Science does not exist in a vacuum. Scientists view nature based on their own presuppositions. Scientists claim that science is only interested in what can be empirically demonstrated (empiricism)–but how is that definition of science empirically demonstrated? Can you empirically measure the theory that science must be empirically demonstrated? Such a thing would be absurd. Instead, the scientific method in order to be accepted as valid must be accepted philosophically, not scientifically, and therefore science itself is grounded first in philosophy. And because it is grounded in philosophy, it disproves its own notion that all truth must be empirically known. The basis of science is itself non-empirical. Why, then, must we accept only empirical knowledge as science?
In reality, science only presupposes that people are able to gain empirical knowledge through their senses. No other requirement need be in effect for science to work. Empirical experience is something believed by both secular and religious people (specifically Christians, although not limited just to them). It’s demonstrated this way:
Secularists believe that the world exists materialistically. Our only source of knowledge is empirical knowledge. Our senses enable us to experience this physical world. Therefore, we can use science to examine the world that we see.
Christians believe that God exists and that He created the physical world. God also gave us our senses so that we can experience this physical world. Therefore, we can use science to examine the world we see.
Science, as you can see, is valid under either presupposition, which is precisely why science cannot disprove religion. It doesn’t even begin to address reality beyond the fact that people can gain empirical evidence. In fact, the Christian’s view is more philosophically sound because it provides a reason for us being able to use science as a method by not excluding anything that cannot be empirically grasped in the first place (remember, empiricism cannot be proven empirically).
So the bottom line is, science is a philosophy. You cannot separate science from philosophy.
Finally, I would like to point out that Intelligent Design is most certainly scientific. In reality, Intelligent Design is a redundancy–if there is design in something, there must have been an intelligence to create that design. And design is most certainly a scientific field. Look at forensic science. When forensic scientists get to a crime scene, their first job is to look at the evidence and conclude whether some intelligent being was involved in the crime or not. They use scientific reasoning to figure this out, because science can determine whether something happened randomly or through design. Just as forensic science is a science, so too Intelligent Design is a science. It looks at the evidence that we have about the nature of the universe–evidence gather empirically, by the way–and determines whether or not existence itself is random or designed. It is not looking for *WHO* or *WHAT* the designer is, it is simply looking at whether or not the universe shows evidence of having been designed. None of this violates even the materialist’s view of science because our inquiries are restricted to empirical evidence only.
In the end, Intelligent Design is not so much about origins as it is about scientific method. Are we allowed to follow science where it leads, or must we restrict science to a materialistic philosophy? Those who would restrict science are the ones who dogmatically claim their philosophy valid. Intelligent Design merely opens the field up to the fact that materialism is an unproven philosophy, and thus science should not be restricted to a materialistic world view.
Thank you for your time.
