The Challenge of Scientific Realism to Intelligent Design
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.2022.3685Abstract
Intelligent Design (ID) argues for the existence of a designer, postulating it as a theoretical entity of a scientific theory aiming to explain specific characteristics in nature that seems to show design. It is commonly accepted within the Scientific Realism debate, however, that asserting that a scientific theory is successful is not enough for accepting the extramental existence of the entities it postulates. Instead, scientific theories must fulfill additional epistemic requirements, one of which is that they must show successful novel predictions. Evolutionists typically attack ID by offering cases of bad design, such as the inverted retina of vertebrates. ID defenders defend their position affirming that the inversion of the retina must be a detail of design for an as of yet unknown function. The recent discovery of such a function is celebrated by ID defenders as a triumph over evolutionists. The inverted retina case is a good candidate for a novel prediction in favor of ID. In this paper, I analyze whether this is the case.
References
Alai, Mario. 2014 “Novel Predictions and the No Miracle Argument.” Erkenntnis 79, no. 2 (April): 297–326. doi:10.1007/s10670–013–9495–7.
Behe, Michael, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, eds. 2000. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2000. “The scientific status of Intelligent Design. The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories.” In Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. edited by Behe, Michael, Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press.
Carman, Christián C. 2005. “La Distinción Teórico/Observacional: ¿favorece o Perjudica al Realismo Científico?” Crítica, 37, no. 111 (December 5): 83–96. doi:10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2005.461.
Carrier, Martin. 1991. “What Is Wrong with the Miracle Argument?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22, no. 1 (March 1): 23–36. doi:10.1016/0039–3681(91)90013-I.
Coyne, Jerry A. 2010. Why Evolution Is True. Oxford ; New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 1st ed. London: John Murray.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1st ed. London: John Murray.
Dawkins, Richard. 1997. Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton.
Dawkins, Richard. 2015. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. W. W. Norton & Company.
Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. 1st Free Press hardcover ed. New York: Free Press.
Dembski, William A. 2008. In Defence of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Dembski, William A. 2001. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, MD.
Dembski, William A. 2005. “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence”. https://billdembski.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf.
Dembski, William A. 1996. “The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities.” Ph.D., Univ. of Illinois.
Dembski, William A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dembski, William A., and Charles W. Colson. 2004. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, Ill.
Dembski, William A., and Sean McDowell. 2008. Understanding Intelligent Design. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers.
Behe, Michael J. 2004. “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution.” In Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Dembski, William A and Michael Ruse, eds. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 352–70. http://proxy.uqtr.ca/login.cgi?action=login&u=uqtr&db=ebsco&ezurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=206900.
Dembski, William A and Michael Ruse, eds. 2004. Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, 352–70. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Devitt, Michael. 1997. Realism and Truth. 2nd ed. with a new afterword. Princeton, N.J: Princeton Univ. Press.
Dunn, Rob. 2012. “Your Appendix Could Save Your Life.” Scientific American Blog Network. Accessed May 11, 2022. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/your-appendix-could-save-your-life/.
Fraassen, Bas. C. van. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001.
Giere, Ronald N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. 8. [repr.]. Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.
Ginobili, Santiago, and Christián C. Carman. 2016. “Explicar y contrastar” 48, no. 142: 57–86.
Gould, S. J., R. C. Lewontin, J. Maynard Smith, and Robin Holliday. 1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 205, no. 1161 (September): 581–98. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086.
Hewitt, John. 2014. “Fiber Optic Light Pipes in the Retina Do Much More than Simple Image Transfer.” Accessed May 11, 2022. https://phys.org/news/2014–07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html.
Kitcher, Philip. 1995. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. 1. issued as an Oxford Univ. Press paperback. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Kojonen, Erkki V. R. 2016. The Intelligent Design Debate and the Temptation of Scientism. Ashgate Science and Religion Series. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kukla, André. 1998. Studies in Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Labin, A. M., and E. N. Ribak. 2010. “Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity.” Physical Review Letters 104, no. 15 (April): 158102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.158102.
Labin, Amichai M., Shadi K. Safuri, Erez N. Ribak, and Ido Perlman. 2014. “Müller Cells Separate between Wavelengths to Improve Day Vision with Minimal Effect upon Night Vision.” Nature Communications 5, no. 1 (September): 4319. doi:10.1038/ncomms5319.
Lakatos, Imre, and Alan Musgrave, eds.1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsificationism and the methodology of scientific research programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lange, M. 2002. “Baseball, Pessimistic Inductions and the Turnover Fallacy.” Analysis 62, no. 4 (October): 281–85. doi:10.1093/analys/62.4.281.
Laudan, Larry. 1996. Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Laudan, Larry, and Jarrett Leplin. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.” The Journal of Philosophy 88, no. 9 (September): 449. doi:10.2307/2026601.
McMullin, Ernan. 1984. “A Case for Scientific Realism.” In Scientific Realism, edited by Jarret Leplin, 8–40. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Laudan, Larry. 1984. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” In Scientific Realism, edited by Jarret Leplin, 218–249. Berkeley: Univ. of California Pres.
Leplin, Jarrett. A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997.
Boyd, Richard. 1984. “The Current Status of Scientific Realism.” In Scientific Realism, edited by Jarret Leplin, 41–84. Berkeley: Univ. of California Pres.
Van Fraassen, Bas. 1984. “To Save the Phenomena.” In Scientific Realism, edited by Jarret Leplin, 250–260. Berkeley: Univ. of California Pres.
Putnam, Hillary. 1984. “What Is Realism?” In Scientific Realism, edited by Jarret Leplin, 140–153. Berkeley: Univ. of California Pres.
Lewis, Peter J. 2001. “Why The Pessimistic Induction Is A Fallacy.” Synthese 129, no. 3 (December): 371–80. doi:10.1023/A:1013139410613.
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd ed. International Library of Philosophy. London ; New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Luskin, Casey. 2011. “Eyeballing Design.” Discovery Institute, December 20. https://www.discovery.org/a/18011/.
Luskin, Casey. 2008. “The Human Eye Is so Poorly Designed That Engineers Mimic It.” Evolution News, August 8. https://evolutionnews.org/2008/08/the_human_eye_is_so_poorly_des/.
Lyons, Timothy D. 2006. “Scientific Realism and the Stratagema de Divide et Impera.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57, no. 3: 537–60.
Magnus, P. D., and Craig Callender. 2004. “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy.” Philosophy of Science 71, no. 3: 320–38.
Matheson, Carl. 1998. “Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12, no. 3: 263–79.
McLeish, Christina. 2005. “Scientific Realism Bit by Bit: Part I. Kitcher on Reference.” Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (December 1): 668–86.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2009. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York.
Miller, K. R. 1984. “Life’s Grand Design.” Technology Review, pp. 25–32. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html.
Musgrave, Alan. 1974. “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, no. 1: 1–23.
Paley, William. 1803. Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. London: R. Faulder.
Psillos, Stathis. 1996. “Scientific Realism and the ‘Pessimistic Induction.’” Philosophy of Science 63: S306–14.
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. Philosophical Issues in Science. London ; New York: Routledge.
Ramón y Cajal, S. 1984. Die Retina Der Wirbelthiere: Untersuchungen Mit Der Golgi-Cajal’schen Chromsilbermethode Und Der Ehrlich’schen Methylenblaufärbung. J.F. Bergmann: Verlag.
Ratzsch, Del, and Jeffrey Koperski. 2022. “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2022. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Univ. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entrieseleological-arguments/.
Ribak, E., and Amichai Labin. 2014. “Color Sorting by Retinal Waveguides.” Optics Express 22 (December 29): 32208. doi:10.1364/OE.22.032208.
Ruse, Michael. 2004. Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Cambridge.
Smart, J. J. C. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. 2013. First issued in paperback, [Reprint der Ausgabe 1963). Routledge Library Editions: History and Philosophy of Science, volume 29. London New York: Routledge, Taylor $ Francis Group.
Sober, Elliott. 2019. The Design Argument. Cambridge Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. press.
Stanford, P. Kyle. 2003. “No Refuge for Realism: Selective Confirmation and the History of Science.” Philosophy of Science 70, no. 5 (December): 913–25. doi:10.1086/377377.
Turner, Derek. 2007. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487385.
Erez Ribak. 2015. “The Purpose of Our Eyes’ Strange Wiring Is Unveiled.” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled/.
Williams, George C. 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Worrall, John. 1994. “How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic: Scientific Realism and the ‘Luminiferous Ether.’” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994, no. 1: 334–42. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1994.1.193038.
Worrall, John. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?*.” Dialectica 43, no. 1–2: 99–124. doi:10.1111/j.1746–8361.1989.tb00933.x
