Is ID Science

Is ID Science - Victoria Hohenstein PHIL 1610 Defining...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Victoria Hohenstein PHIL 1610 Defining Science Both Jones’ second and third demarcation criteria fail to fairly and accurately define what differentiates a scientific argument from a pseudoscientific one. His first argument, however, is valid and does result in the failure of ID as a valid scientific argument. Jones stated that ID fails as a science because 1) Science does not invoke or permit supernatural causation and 2) Irreducible complexity as an argument is inherently flawed (Monton, Unpublished manuscript) Though I agree with his final conclusion about the scientific validity of the theory of intelligent design, I believe his demarcation criteria are not correct for determining whether a theory is a valid scientific argument or not. In this paper I will first show how his second and third criteria fall. I will then propose a set of demarcation criteria that would better separate what is scientific from what is not. Jones’ second argument is that because ID is based on a flawed argument that the whole theory is flawed. I disagree, just because an idea is flawed doesn’t make it unscientific. There are several examples of commonly accepted scientific laws that under testing have been shown to be flawed but are still accepted amongst the modern scientific community. Mendel’s pattern of genetic inheritance is a commonly accepted as a scientific law. It is, however, viewed as a flawed argument because it represents all inheritance as a probability of genes passing from parent to offspring. This is proven to be untrue after experiments were preformed with model organism other than the pea plant. Thomas Hunt Morgan’s tests with Drosophlla melanogaster and their inheritance of eye color conflicted with the results Mendelian genetics stated he should get. Upon crossing the F 1 generation he expected to get a dominant to recessive ratio of 75% to 25%. He instead observed that only 17% of the F 2 generation was heterozygous recessive. (Raven, et al. 2005, 265-267) This result was later shown to be a result of sex linkage in genes, something Mandel’s model for genetic inheritance had failed to account for. This makes Mendel’s argument flawed but not necessarily unscientific. Just
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

Is ID Science - Victoria Hohenstein PHIL 1610 Defining...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online