The Scientific Paradox

Scott Adams has a pretty keen intellect. I'm reading his non-dilbert book God's Debris right now, and it definite a work to make you think. That work is available for free here.

Scott isn't a Christian, but his current demonstration of the problems surrounding intelligent design is worth reading.

Imagine that lightning suddenly carves into the side of the Washington Monument the words “I am God. I created you. Darwin was a nut.” And let’s say there are hundreds of witnesses who all have video cameras and capture it from multiple angles.

Now imagine that the same phenomenon repeats every day for a month, each time on a different monument. Scientists study the phenomena and conclude that humans probably didnÂ’t cause it, but beyond that, there are no further scientific clues about how lighting could seem so directed.

If I crafted my thought experiment right, no one would have any idea how to devise a test that would confirm or exclude the possibility that God really did it. Hypothetically, being omnipotent and all, he would be capable of leaving no clues, other than signing his name. Therefore, any speculation as to the cause is not science.

Here we have one of the fundamental problems of science. Scientific inquiry is based on fundamental assumptions just like anything else. Specifically, scientific inquiry is based on the philosophical principles of Methodological Naturalism. This means that physical phenomenon can only be studied through natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations. Therefore anyone caught saying "God did it" is guilty of being a bad scientist because they are using the supernatural, not the natural. This is why Intelligent Design is considered to be bad science, it is a discipline which centers around "God (aliens, Xenu) did it".

The problem comes with miracles. What if God did do something through direct supernatural intervention? They certainly wouldn't be able to prove God did it, would they? Well a good scientist would simply have to withhold judgement if they couldn't find a natural cause. Their own fundamental principles keep them from using the supernatural as an answer.

Of course there are scientists out there who are not just adherents to Methodological Naturalism, but are also adherents to Ontological Naturalism. Ontological Naturalism says that the supernatural doesn't exist at all, only the natural world exists. Usually these folks are the scientists being given awards from humanist and athiest organization. Were a miracle to occur before them, they would proclaim it a hoax that they just can't prove yet.

I'm not a big fan of religion masquerading as science. But I am even less of a fan as science masquerading as religion. At least religion purports to have answers to everything, where as good science admits to how limited the scope of scientific discussion really is.