The Proof is in the Pudding, Not the Recipe
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson. Karl Giberson directs the new science & religion writing program at Gordon College in Boston. He has published more than 100 articles, reviews and essays for Web sites and journals including Salon.com, Books & Culture, and the Huffington Post. He has written seven books, including Saving Darwin, The Language of Science & Faith, and The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age.
It will soon be time for Easter dinner, a wonderful family event at our home on Boston’s South Shore. Three generations of family will gather at our table, joined by some friends whose families are far away, a new fiancé, and a couple of stranded college students who had nowhere to go.
At these extended family dinners everyone, except the poor college students, brings something for the meal. Contemplating the upcoming dinner has put me in mind of a thought experiment. Imagine that a guest brings a new pudding to dinner and, prior to serving it, goes on at some length about the recipe. The recipe, you learn, was developed with great rigor. It had been formulated by Ph.D. biochemists, who also had cooking certificates from culinary institutes in Paris. It followed all the rules of recipes. In fact you were amazed to discover that there were such things as “rules” for recipes. You had been laboring under the assumption that there were just recipes.
After the main course, desserts are served and, although you prefer pie, you feel obligated to have some pudding, since it—and its marvelous recipe—has been promoted with such enthusiasm by the well-educated cosmopolitan pudding-makers.
Unfortunately, the pudding tastes terrible. Nobody at the table but the pudding-makers likes it. But they aggressively celebrate their pudding anyway, arguing that their diligent adherence to such a perfect recipe must certainly have produced a good product and what was wrong with everyone that they were not impressed?
I offer this little parable about pudding to make a point about science. There is no “recipe” for doing science. Philosophers starting with Francis Bacon in the 17th century have tried to specify rules for doing science. Bacon said to use open-minded induction and draw only cautious generalizations. Two centuries later Karl Popper said do the opposite—make creative hypotheses and try to falsify them. But, for various reasons, none of these “recipes” for doing science have actually worked very well as a universal method. Science is always more complicated and messy than the recipes imply.
Recently a biology teacher inquired of Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute how science works in the Intelligent Design paradigm. How, the teacher asked, does one “test intelligent design using the scientific method?” The response was that ID uses the scientific method: “a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.”
This four-step process is, unfortunately, widely known as the scientific method. This creates the misleading impression that all you need to do is follow this one method—this recipe—and the result will be “science” Any investigation following this method will supposedly be “scientific.” If only it were this simple….
The only way to truly tell when “science” is happening is if new knowledge is being generated. And new knowledge is just that—new. New in the sense of novel, exciting, surprising. New in the sense of “How can that be?” This is how science has always worked, and this is where new ideas get their power.
When Mendeleev developed the periodic table of the elements in the 19th century he discovered it had a “hole”—an empty block in between Gallium and Arsenic, right under silicon. For his idea about the regularity of the elements to be valid, there had to be an element to fill that hole. So he made some reasonable extrapolations and developed a description of the atom that would naturally fit in the hole. And then Germanium was discovered, with exactly the properties that Mendeleev had predicted.
When Einstein developed General Relativity it made the unusual prediction that gravity would bend starlight and make stars appear in different locations. And then in 1919 this prediction was confirmed by Sir Arthur Eddington who photographed some stars under the conditions that Einstein had described. It was such a success that the New York Times ran a headline shortly thereafter: “Lights All Askew in the Heavens.” And scientists knew that General Relativity was a robust new science.
Revolutionary scientific ideas generate new knowledge about the world. They tell you something surprising and compelling.
The examples offered as indicators of ID’s scientific depth are not convincing. ID may follow the scientific method, but the “knowledge” generated is quite unimpressive. Luskin notes that, “ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).” This is a fancy way of saying “intelligent agents produce intelligence.”
Next we are told that “Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.” And how do we know that something is designed? Because it contains high levels of CSI. So we now understand that things with high levels of CSI will, if our hypothesis is true, have high levels of CSI.
But, as obvious as all this seems, it still doesn’t quite make sense to me. Are there not many things that are carefully and intelligently designed to be simple rather than complex? I once hired a landscape architect to help me plan my yard and I got the distinct impression he was using his considerable talents to make things simple rather than complex. I think he was minimizing the CSI in my yard.
To follow the scientific method ID has to make “testable predictions.” Here, apparently, is an example of how this is done: “Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function.” I am wondering how such a prediction would be verified though, since conventional evolutionary theory predicts exactly the same thing.
The upshot of all this is, as has become clear over the past few years, is that ID is still trying to find itself. If it succeeds in figuring out what it is trying to do, we will all know. But not because the “scientific method” was followed. We will know because ID will have generated some brand new information about the world.
The proof is in the pudding, not the recipe.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
March 29th 2010
Well, it doesn’t. It has no theory and no causes, thus it makes no entailed predictions.
I know that science isn’t a recipe, yet enough is known about how to do science to recognize that ID, like Plato’s forms, fails any meaningful test for science.
The difference is that evolutionary theory does predict it, and ID does not. IDists make that “prediction,” obviously trying to pretend that known facts make ID viable. However, they have no scientifically-known cause that is able to make such natural structures. This “ID prediction” only sounds like it comes from ID, but there is nothing inherent in ID capable of making such a prediction.
Glen Davidson
Reply to this commenthttp://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
March 29th 2010
Continued from #7987:
Evolutionary theory predicts in a scientific sense because it infers from known adaptation to past and to future unknown adaptive scenarios (not predicting exactly what will appear, but aspects of how it will proceed and the constraints it will follow). And, ever since the synthesis, it has had known causes to constrain its predictions as well.
Glen Davidson
Reply to this commenthttp://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
March 29th 2010
“Are there not many things that are carefully and intelligently designed to be simple rather than complex?”
I have never understood the complexity=design argument either. It has never made any sense to me, not even in the slightest. As you quite rightly say; why is simplicity not one of the main hallmarks of design? I don’t see why undirected natural processes wouldn’t produce inordinate amounts of complexity, constantly scrapping together components bit-by-bit but with no ultimate foresight that might guide it down more simple pathways. As soon as somebody starts going on about ‘complexity’, ‘nanotechnology’, ‘molecular machines’, and all the rest of it, I just switch off. I already know where they are going and just don’t see the logic.
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
Nice pudding parable, Karl!
Luskin holds degrees in biology & law, though he is not a ‘biologist’ or ‘scientist’ by occupation.
I was rather excited to see you unveil the myth; instead there simply is no universal scientific method. As you know, the field of Science Studies immediately asks: Which science? Whose science? The reality is that many different methods are employed in ‘sciences,’ ranging from cosmology & geology, to biology & neuro-anatomy, to psychology & cognitive sciences, to anthropology, economics & linguistics.
The debate about ‘what counts as science’ has not been finally concluded.
Later in the thread you reverted, however, to speaking of ‘the (singular) scientific method’ & I wondered if this could be exchanged with ‘scientific methodology’ to avoid linguistic singularity.
Nevertheless, your main points are excellent: “indicators of ID’s scientific depth are not convincing” & “ID is still trying to find itself.” Though ‘identifying patterns’ – ‘how can that be?’ – may count as ‘science’, the IDM needs to contribute much more to be accepted than it has thus far done.
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
Correction to my faulty memory:
Casey Luskin - BSc, MSc Earth Sciences - UCSD, Law - USD
www.caseyluskin.com
Silly me for confusing biology with earth sciences and geology!
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
Is this essay arguing that ID is not science or that it is just bad science? You seem to acknowledge that the ID “pudding makers” are doing science, b/c even though their pudding may taste bad to many, it’s still a pudding. You also acknowledge that there is no all-encompassing definition of science.
But then you seem to offer a specific criterion for what constitutes science: “if new knowledge is being generated.” But this seems to be an inordinately restrictive definition that excludes much of what I think constitutes science. Are you saying that a physics student who conducts an experiment that shows that F=ma is not doing science b/c nothing new was generated? Or that only Darwin was doing science, and just about every subsequent study of evolution is not b/c they are only verifying Darwin’s theory rather than generating something new?
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
Kendalf:
The physics student doing experiments is repeating exercises that we know are science because, when they were new, they generated knowledge of the world. Whether we would call doing a physics lab “doing” science would be just a rhetorical issue. ID does not claim to be “repeating famous experiments.” They claim to be doing cutting edge—“Look at us, Thomas Kuhn!”—science in a brand new paradigm. If they were, then they would be finding out new things about the world.
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
I once watched a show by David Suzuki wherein he tried to get the idea across that science works simply because people are curious. Lying on his back once, relaxing, he observed a fly land upside down on the ceiling. Knowing that flies cannot fly upside down, he wondered how this was possible. His point was that this wonderment is the main source of new science. I agree. There are many theories about the process of scientific discovery. These theories often are generated by philosophers. Science progresses in spite of these theories, not because of them. I’ve worked as a scientist for 35 years and never once had to consult the recipe on how to do science.
Reply to this commentMarch 29th 2010
Ther’s a difference between “doing science” (even badly) and claiming to do science by being “sciencey.”
Richard Feyman’s name for efforts like those of the Discovery Institute is “cargo cult science.”
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
The Discovery Institute’s slippery efforts of fobbing off lawyers, philosophers and engineers as “scientitsts” is an attempt to be “sciencey.” The operation of the “Biologic Institute” is another example of cargo cult science. Using ill-defiend words such as specified complexity, information and irrducible complexity are also attemtps to be sciency without really doing anything scientific.
Well,the proff is in the pudding, to compelte the metaphor.
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Hi Karl,
Your words:
““Next we are told that “Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.” And how do we know that something is designed? Because it contains high levels of CSI. So we now understand that things with high levels of CSI will, if our hypothesis is true, have high levels of CSI.”“
Thank you so much for explaining this for us!
Rick
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Gregory,
“The scientific method” is a myth perhaps - but the disciplines you list, ... cosmology & geology, to biology & neuro-anatomy, to psychology & cognitive sciences, to anthropology, economics & linguistics ... (remove, perhaps, economics ...I am not sure) and the same methods of thinking and reasoning are applied in each and every case. I think this is “the” scientific method - logical problem solving to pull together a coherent whole. I can pick up original literature in all of these areas and the details change - but the logic of creative problem solving does not. The four-fold “recipe” of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion is but one method of creative problem solving.
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Did Darwin discover something new? or was he a great synthesizer of ideas and data which were already available at the time?
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Hi Karl,
If we distinguish between historical and experimental science, it might help clarify the question of how ID can be science.
Historical science seeks to find the best explanation for something that has happened, such as the origin of life (OOL). And Stephen Meyer just wrote a (too) lengthy book attempting to show that intelligent design was he best explanation for the OOL. Michael Behe has argued that the best explanation of irreducibly complex systems is intelligent design.
But given that the frst cells were designed, can we find out more?
Mike Gene is testing the hypothesis that the first cells were front-loaded in order to make the evolution of multicellularity more likely. And he is making considerable progress.
Richard Sternberg seems to be pursuing the same hypothesis as James Shapiro, that the DNA acts as some sort of genetic engineer. I don’t know if he’s made much progress, but it is a testable hypothesis.
So there seem to be ways to do science with ID, that can result in new knowledge.
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Mike G, if you’re around, I have an ignorant question to ask, regarding your front-loading hypothesis (I haven’t read what you’ve written beyond your posts here nor am I a biologist). Quoting Bilbo above, the hypothesis is “that the first cells were front-loaded in order to make the evolution of multicellularity more likely”. At least in the explanations I’ve read of the development of life on earth, it took 2.5 billion years or so to move from single-celled to multi-celled organisms. Paraphrasing Bill Bryson regarding that time period: “Much of life on earth was not terribly ambitious.”
Hmm, front-loaded + 2.5 billion years doesn’t seem to add up. What am I missing in the equation?
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
He proposed Natural Selection (and sexual selection) as the mechanism that drove evolution.
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
You say ID follows the scientific method?! Um, what’s the experiment part that develops evidence supporting or reluting the hypothesis?
There is only one way to reach conclusions through science and that is THE scientific method: question, hypothesis, experiment, gather evidence, and make a conclusion. What’s open to question with this scientific process is how much, and what kind of evidence, is needed to determine if something is true or false. I guess this is personal. How much do you need? I think the importance is that everyone determines that amount and stays consistent with that amount of evidence for all of life’s questions. I think we can all agree though, that the more evidence there is to support a hypothesis, the more likely that hypothesis is correct.
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
Do ID theorists present their findings to mainstream scientists in published papers and at meetings? Can it withstand scientific scrutiny? Or do they do an end run around the scientific process and try to push their material directly into the school curriculum?
Reply to this commentMarch 30th 2010
beaglelady - #8056
March 30th 2010
Did Darwin discover something new? or was he a great synthesizer of ideas and data which were already available at the time?
He proposed Natural Selection (and sexual selection) as the mechanism that drove evolution.
——
Hi there Beagle lady,
Darwin did both: Years of collecting novel specimens and then assembling and deducing possible connections between these specimens. One of the perplexing ( to him) was the occurrence of marine fossils at the top of mountains in South America. Geology later provided the answers with an understanding of how mountain ranges are formed. (Uplift)
Reply to this commentRick
March 30th 2010
beaglelady - #8056
I missed that your post was a response to an earlier one. I guess some redundancy is ok.
Reply to this commentRick
March 30th 2010
Hi Karl A.,
I probably should’t try to answer for Mike Gene (btw, I claim that he’s doing science, he doesn’t), but I will.
1) Mike’s hypothesis is that the first cells would contain the ingredients necessary for multicellularity.
2) This does not guarantee that multicellurarity would evolve. Other factors would come into play, such as the environment, and the right combination of mutations.
3) So to use the 2.5 billion year argument, we would need to know that environmental conditions were conducive for multicellular life. And that there had been enough time to allow for the right combination of mutations to probably happen.
Reply to this comment