Science is Messy

The “polished myths” of the science we learn from books “submerge the false steps and halting uncertainties under a surface of orderly intellectual progress.” (James Gliek, Genius) Science research is not really nice and neat since it is done by human beings relying on human reason and afflicted by human failings. Although most teachers portray science as the most orderly process, it does not actually proceed according to a set of rules dictated by philosophers.

When scientists get to arguing about their favorite theories, the debate frequently devolves to the lowest common denominator. Does one or the other theory pass the test of falsifiability? If it cannot be proven false then it cannot be a scientific theory, so said Karl Popper. Through the ages falsifiability has been the bar: Lamark may have challenged Darwin about the real possibility of falsifying the evolution of species from the evidence of a few crumbly fossils. More recently, the early proponents of the Standard Model of Particle Physics were challenged by the seeming impossibility of isolating its fundamental component, the quark. How ever could such a theory be falsified? -- They were asked.

Today, the common objection to Intelligent Design is that it is not even science.

“There’s a deep flaw in the theory: No part of it has been tested and no one knows how to test it. No experiment will ever be able to prove it false. As a scientific theory, it fails.” QED. (I will return to this salient quote.)

Darwin’s theory of evolution claims that all living beings evolved through the process of natural selection upon random mutations. This claim has been applied to the first living cell, to micro-molecular machines, to the simplest animals and to human beings. It’s applied to body form and to mind. Evolution is a neat theory, partially validated, but it is the responsibility of its proponents to prove the validity of its major as well as minor points. Those who examine and criticize the evolution data are doing good service to science. Sadly, in critical areas this duty has been largely ignored by the biology community and left to the Intelligent Design (ID) community.

The converse view is that evolution is generally wrong, but perhaps right in limited cases. In this respect evolution might be compared to Newton’s gravity law which is a good approximation in many cases but not generally true, as Einstein showed. This converse point of view is equally scientific and the burden of proof is on the evolutionary proponents.

The essence of Intelligent Design is that there are elements of nature that exhibit features of design and could not have been created by survival of the fittest random mutations. As a statement of observable fact, design is obvious and unobjectionable. And just because it does not fit into a neat scientific structure does not mean it is untrue.

Furthermore, when applied to organisms such as elementary cells and micro-molecular machines and new species, the predictions of ID can indeed be tested by observation and scientific study. Biochemist Michael Behe is using the probe of irreducible complexity. Mathematician Bill Dembski uses specified complexity (Leslie Orgel) using his explanatory filter decision process. Origin-of-life scientist Steven Meyer studies evolution from the perspective of information theory. There are many other scientists and scientific approaches pursuing the truth about life and speciation.

But what about the falsifiability objection: “No experiment will ever be able to prove it false. As a scientific theory, it fails.” So it must be that a theory is wrong by definition if it cannot be falsified. Never mind if it's true.

Well those who are familiar with the theory of strings, the most fundamental theory in physics, might be surprised to know that the statement in quotes above was actually written by physicist Lee Smolin, and that he was criticizing string theory not ID. In The Trouble with Physics, Smolin describes how an orthodox devotion to string theory has hamstrung physics for over 25 years. He points out that string theory makes no new predictions that can be tested by current or reasonably conceivable experiments. What’s more, it comes in a nearly infinite number of versions so that no matter what the experiments show, string theory could never be disproved.

Yet, … popular books are written about string theory (see, eg, Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimension by Lisa Randall, Harvard particle physicist), web sites are dedicated to helping schools teach the concepts of String Theory to kids (Superstringtheory or the teacher’s guide on Elegant Universe) So the same kids who are not told about the problems of evolution and who continue to learn Darwinian myths like Haekel’s embryos, are being taught that space has 9 or 17 or who knows how many dimensions and that our universe is only one of zillions. Like it’s true!

And this theory has such a stranglehold on university physics departments that it is “practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field” (as Lee Smolin did before realizing that the emperor had no clothes).

Anyway, it is not my point to criticize string theory or loop quantum gravity (Smolin’s favorite) or any other scientific theory. Just do the work and let the chips fall where they may, whether it’s physics or evolutionary biology.