If Intelligent Design Is "Pseudoscience," Then Neo-Darwinism Might Be Too

If you've ever read anything about intelligent design (ID) online, you're sure to have noticed that it is dismissed by many elites as "pseudoscience." Wikipedia has a terrible track record of shoehorning this term into every article that mentions ID.

Why? A big part of it, as far as I can tell, is that ID does not adhere to methodological naturalism (MN). Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, one of ID's architects, defines MN in this way: "a principle that specifies that scientists must explain all events by reference to materialistic (non-intelligent) causes whatever the evidence."

ID breaks the rules of MN by inferring an intelligent source from things like the irreducible complexity (i.e., you take one piece out of the system, and it won't function anymore) of bacterial flagellum or the biological information contained in DNA. The main idea that drives ID is that complex systems and information have an intelligent cause.

Now perhaps I can see the appeal of MN. It's parsimonious in its ontological commitments, as it only makes room for material things.

Suppose we accept MN. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to classify ID has a scientific-philosophical research program, instead of as a purely scientific one.

But the criticism that ID is a "pseudoscience" could just as well be levelled against neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, who writes in his book The Blind Watchmaker that "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view."

Dawkins steps outside the boundaries of MN here. While ID theorists infer a designer from information encountered in the natural world, Dawkins infers that no such designer exists, all while providing an anti-metanarrative for natural selection. This is not just methodological, but also ontological, naturalism.

Selective Separation of Church and State

In a previous post, I wrote about a psychological consequence of the separation of church and state: if church and state are separated entirely, this creates a rift in church members' thinking about the state, for they cannot refer to their religious beliefs when thinking about the state. This is impossible, especially regarding moral issues involving the state (e.g., abortion laws, drug policies, military decisions), for moral beliefs belong to religious beliefs.

Consider some sentiments from left-wing Christians. Brenda Davies from the God is Grey YouTube channel says in this Jubilee discussion that "universal healthcare is the most Christ-like thing I can imagine." Exodus 23:9 is also often repeated by left-wing Christians with regard to immigration policy, so it's not surprising that social-justice magazine Sojourners includes it in their article "22 Bible Verses on Welcoming Immigrants."

Perhaps I'm being speculative here, but I believe there's a certain kind of person who claims to endorse the separation of church and state yet has no problem if religion is used to inform certain laws and policies, so long as religion informs those laws and policies in their preferred way. This group I am imagining would of course include progressive Christians, but it could also include non-religious progressives who didn't mind getting the political ends they wanted by religious means.

What does the separation of church and state apply to, then? It seems to me that it applies mostly to matters of a sexual nature, such as divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and trans rights. This is selective and inconsistent.

As far as I can tell, "the separation of church and state" is usually shorthand for not applying certain ethical standards of a religious community to those outside who would find those ethical standards unpleasant.

So it's not really about separating the church and the state at all. It's about removing any obstacles that might get in the way of one's preferred laws being commenced or policies being enacted.

Authenticity Is Bipolar

When I ponder the age I live in, I come away thinking that the quest for authenticity is forged in opposite directions. Allow me to explain.

On the one hand, there is an aspiration for augmentation, particularly of the self, and sometimes to the point of absurdity. An example of this would be someone of one sex believing that their "true self" is actually the opposite sex, which I have previously suggested is as misguided as denying one's birthplace or biological parents.

On the other, there is an aspiration for limitation, this time not of the self, but of the things one encounters. Hobbies and entertainment immediately come to mind. We might have several streaming platforms with a near-infinite amount of songs, but there has also been an interest in CDs and vinyl in recent years. Three of the malls in my city have a Sunrise Records, for instance. CRT TVs are also trending; the CRT Collective group on Facebook has over 261,000 members. Many people want fewer songs, smaller screens, and less customizability. This is an understandable response to choice overload.