An Objective Scientist Considers ID

by Dr. Dwight Galster

There is a theory that inheritance accounts for a good portion of IQ. This theory tends to be believed by White, Jewish, and Asian people. There is another theory that inheritance has no effect on IQ and that it is all due to environment. This theory tends to be believed by Blacks and Liberals. The competing theories can be studied by a variety of scientific methods. Like all science, results are tentative and people think of new ways to approach the problem as time goes on. Now: Is there any point in saying that the inheritance theory is invalid because it is believed by more Whites? or that the environment theory is invalid because it is believed by more Blacks?

Who believes a theory has nothing to do with its validity or accuracy. So it is with evolution and ID. Proclaiming ID unscientific because 1, 10, 1000, or a million Christians believe it is plain wrong. Proclaiming evolution unscientific because 1, 10, 1000, or a million atheists believe it is also wrong.

Many people want the IQ debate off the table. They believe it is inherently racist to consider that IQ might be inherited, therefore people who study the inheritance of IQ are persecuted and marginalized, as happened to Herrnstein and Murray ("The Bell Curve"). Many people want Male-Female differences off the table for similar reasons. Therefore when a well-respected academic calls for an open and fair discussion of the issue, his career and position are threatened, as happened to Lawrence Summers (president of Harvard).

There is a pattern here. People are territorial in the realm of ideas. They try to suppress any ideas that conflict with ones they strongly support. The so-called objectivity of science is non-existent.

But suppose we had a perfect scientist. one who had no agenda and no beliefs. Could we ask him to evaluate our debate? Could we say to him, "Sir, we would like to know if scientists can be allowed to search for evidence of creation. Some claim that doing so automatically turns the scientist into a religious fanatic who cannot operate with scientific objectivity. Can you help us?"

Perhaps his answer would go something like this. "I have no belief in a creator, nor do I believe that none exists. My desire is to find out all that I can from the world around me. I have no agenda to prove or disprove anything. Since I do not know that there is no God, it would certainly be foolish to act as if there were none. Since I do not know that there is a God, I cannot act is if there were one. I must examine the evidence, and my conclusion, which will be tentative, will be based on the best evidence currently available. I will also attempt to formulate some hypotheses based on extrapolation and the expectation of information that might be forthcoming in the future."

"First of all, it must be made clear that it is not possible to prove a negative. Therefore, one cannot scientifically assert that there is no God. It does not matter at all how much evidence we fail to collect; the absence of evidence cannot be used as a proof. However, in keeping with widely recognized principles of science, I will prefer that if something is well-explained by natural processes, or there is good reason to believe that a natural explanation will be forthcoming, it will not be ascribed a supernatural power. On the other hand, if there is an absence of evidence that something can be produced by a natural process, and no explanation appears to be forthcoming, we cannot rule out either possibility, that there is a natural cause or a supernatural cause. Now we have a quandary, for there is only one case left--that of something which is well-explained by supernatural processes. But science knows nothing of supernatural processes, and claims to be unable to detect or explain them. At the same time, we cannot rule out that such processes exist. Therefore, we have arrived at a limitation of science, and also uncovered an inherent bias in science. The bias is in favor of admitting natural explanations at all times, whether the evidence is strong or weak, and against admitting supernatural explanations at any time. The bias stands against something which may very well be real and true, but which is not subject to scientific investigation. This is a difficult problem, because the rejection of truth due to bias is a serious error, much more so than accidental rejection of truth due to lack of evidence. The latter is easily corrected, but errors due to bias are entrenched and difficult to overcome."

"Clearly, steps must be taken to guard against the inherent bias of science. The most important step that can be taken is that an open admission must be made that supernatural explanations may be valid. This has not been done in the last century or so of science history. All supernatural explanations have been widely ridiculed as unscientific, and automatically judged to be false on that ground alone, without regard to any valid claims to truth that the explanation may have."

"Next, we need to understand that, while science can have no direct evidence of supernatural processes (I have deliberately left that undefined), there may be indirect evidence. Such is the case with the Intelligent Design theory, or ID. ID proposes that all information has an intelligent source. This is not a revolutionary proposal. It has wide (and deep) support in many sub-fields of science. ID further proposes that DNA contains information. The conclusion is that DNA is a product of intelligence. This is a very worthwhile hypothesis. In fact, it is surprising that anyone even questions its validity as science. If this hypothesis were raised in any other context than the origin of life, there would be no doubt that it would be taken seriously. Similar hypotheses have been used in a variety of ways to advance scientific knowledge, such as in the SETI project and in the area of Signal Transmission. It is clear that ID has come straight up against the inherent bias of science against the supernatural. For, if DNA contains information generated by an intelligent source, that source may be "supernatural" and thus outside the reach of science. That is a situation some cannot abide."

"There is no doubt that DNA contains information. It is quite reasonable to ask whether or not this information is like all other information that we know about, in that it has an intelligent source, or whether it is somehow exempt from that requirement. Note that there is no appeal to the supernatural here, but to the natural. In nature, all information has an intelligent source. DNA contains information. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent source. That is, in fact, the natural explanation. If it leads to questions about the source of the information, which it certainly should, and such additional questions are outside the realm of science, that does not in any way negate the evidence, the natural explanation, that we now have in hand. One question is not invalidated by the posing of another. Nor is an explanation invalidated by posing further questions, whether or not they are answerable within the scientific paradigm."