The following is an article from the
The Philosophers Magazine Online,
reprinted here without alteration and with the kind permission of the author,
Michael LaBossiere.
Provocations
Michael LaBossiere
Number Eight: A New Dogma
In his February 2002 Skeptic column in Scientific American Michael Shermer
launched an attack on Intelligent Design theory in favor of the theory of
evolution. In its crudest form, ID is old-fashioned creationism. In a more
sophisticated form, ID is the view that there is a guiding intelligence behind
the universe. In contrast, evolutionary theory denies the presence of such an
intelligent designer and instead appeals to mindless physical processes in its
explanations. There are still some people who deny the truth of evolution and
Shermer, in a wonderful ad hominem, asserted that such denial is "the
doppelganger of Holocaust denial…" Some people are not content to merely deny
evolution. In the United States (of course) there have been recent attempts to
have ID taught in public schools. In response, Shermer says "To counter the
nefarious influence of the ID creationists…it is not enough to argue that
creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right."
When I read Shermer's column I wrote a letter critical of his approach. First, I
pointed out that comparing those who deny evolution to those who deny the
Holocaust is an ad hominem or, at least, an unpleasant innuendo-namely that
denying evolution is parallel to denying the horrible murder of millions.
Second, I pointed out that the attitude that we must prove one view wrong and
another right runs contrary to the proper way of engaging in critical and
scientific thinking-namely, having no agenda but the truth. Unfortunately, I
could not resist a bit of sarcasm and wrote "In his zeal to defend his faith in
evolutionary theory, Shermer violates those standards." While I was referring to
the standards of critical thinking, Shermer elected to claim in his July 2002
column that I was asserting the view that "evolution requires faith to believe."
While I suspect that Shermer was merely careless when he made a straw man out of
my argument, his attitude does show signs of dogmatism. Ironically, his methods
are similar to those used by religious dogmatists-ad hominem attacks on
disbelievers, a very devoted commitment to a particular dogma rather than truth
and, of course, the misrepresentation of the views of those who dare to dissent.
Unfortunately, Shermer does not seem to be alone in his dogmatism. The July 2002
issue of Scientific American featured an article entitled "15 Ways to Expose
Creationist Nonsense." While this article by John Rennie made many lucid and
reasonable points, there are two things about it that concern me greatly.
First is the title. Asserting that an opposing view is nonsense, even when it is
nonsense, is not very professional. More importantly, it violates the standards
of good reasoning-opposing views are not to be defeated by mockery or
name-calling, but solely by arguments. Finally, while many creationist arguments
are rather flawed there are arguments for intelligent design that are well
reasoned and provide challenges worthy of respect-hardly nonsense at all.
Ironically, religious dogmatists also employed this erroneous method against
their scientific opponents in the past.
The second is Rennie's view that "'Creation science' is a contradiction in
terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism-it seeks
to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural
mechanisms." While this might be an apt description of modern science it is also
a question begging principle. This is because it dismisses, by mere fiat,
anything that is not a natural mechanism from the realm of science. While the
world might be fully explainable in terms of natural mechanisms, this principle
must be proven and not merely assumed. Not surprisingly religious dogmatists
assumed that almost all things must have a divine explanation and that other
types of explanation could and should be dismissed. Both views are equally
dogmatic and equally unacceptable.
This dogmatism is not limited to Scientific American. Even a cursory examination
of relevant journals and popular scientific magazines will show a more or less
unquestioning commitment to evolution. The strength of this commitment is such
that when it comes to explaining phenomena such as psychology, morality and
social institutions the question is not "can evolution explain this?" but "how
does evolution explain this?"
By now most readers probably suspect I am a creationist who is eager to smuggle
God back into science. This is far from the truth. My goal is not to attack
evolution or defend ID. My goal is to attack dogmatism. It just so happens that
the newest dogmatists wear lab coats instead of priestly garb. Regardless of its
guise, dogmatism is the enemy of both science and philosophy. Our goal is and
must be the truth and not pushing a view we happen to favor or regard as
fashionable.
Click here to go to the
Philosophy Café