Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to a widespread philosophical opinion, science is strictly limited to investigating natural causes and putting forth natural explanations. Lacking the tools to evaluate supernatural claims, science must remain studiously neutral on questions of metaphysics. This (self-imposed) stricture, which goes under the name of ‘methodological naturalism’, allows science to be divorced from metaphysical naturalism or atheism, which many people tend to associate with it. However, ruling the supernatural out of science by fiat is not only philosophically untenable, it actually provides grist to the mill of anti-evolutionism. The philosophical flaws in this conception of methodological naturalism have been gratefully exploited by advocates of intelligent design creationism to bolster their false accusations of naturalistic bias and dogmatism on the part of modern science. We argue that it promotes a misleading view of the scientific endeavor and is at odds with the foremost arguments for evolution by natural selection. Reconciling science and religion on the basis of such methodological strictures is therefore misguided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Gish (1973), Macbeth (1974), Johnson (1993), Nelson (1996), Behe (2006).

  2. Pennock (1996), Forrest (2000), Tanona (2010), Fishman (2009), Mahner (2011).

  3. Pennock (1999), Scott (1998), Haught (2004), Jones (2005), K. B. Miller (2009).

  4. Edis (2002), Shanks (2004), Coyne (2009a), Fishman (2009).

  5. Before resorting to supernatural causes, we should of course make sure to eliminate all available natural ones, especially given that all such recourses have invariably turned out premature. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to conceive of some extraordinary event that leaves all natural explanations impotent (examples provided in Boudry et al. 2010), and that can be elegantly explained by some supernatural hypothesis. In such cases, or so we argue, supernatural explanations would be warranted.

  6. See also Plantinga (1996), Dembski (1999, pp. 97–121).

  7. See also Nelson (1996, 1998), Dembski (2004, pp. 168–172), Bledsoe (2006, pp. 255–256).

  8. Some advocates of IMN have made an argument that is the exact mirror image of ours. Rejecting the supernatural on empirical grounds, so they claim, is counterproductive for the public understanding of science (Pennock 2003; Haught 2000). For example, theologian and theistic evolutionist John Haught writes that evolutionary materialists are “conflating science with a worldview” and that “they leave themselves with no methodological high ground to stand when they complain about ID’s mixing of biology with theology” (Haught 2000, p. 207). But Haught’s argument begs the question against evolutionary materialists, because it already presupposes that science is not equipped to deal with supernatural claims, a claim that Haught gives no support for. Besides, evolutionary materialists are not the ones to complain about the “conflating” of biology and theology. They agree with IDC proponents that, if a supernatural entity has been involved in the creation of the world, it is in principle within the reach of science.

  9. See also Scott (1998), Sober (2010).

  10. Strictly speaking, defenders of IMN allow for scientific arguments against the idea of separate origins, though not against special creation by a supernatural being. But we don’t see any difference. If particular observations about the material world can be derived from some supernatural worldview, and those observations are not borne out, then they disfavor that supernatural worldview.

  11. The example is given in Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams.

  12. Nelson (1996, 1998); see also Dembski (1999), Woetzel (2005), Dilley (2010).

  13. Some defenders of IMN are metaphysical naturalists and atheists all the same, but they simply feel that this is a purely philosophical discussion which should be separated from scientific issues (Pigliucci 2010).

  14. Cited in Plantinga (2001b, p. 347).

  15. Smith (2000), Edis (2002), Shanks (2004), Dawkins (2006), Stenger (2008), Fales (2009), Fishman (2009).

  16. In a review of Shanks’ book, IDC sympathizer Del Ratzsch unsurprisingly accuses Shanks of misrepresenting even the views of his evolutionist allies, and he confronts him with a catalogue of quotes by IMN advocates (Ratzsch 2005, pp. 39–48).

  17. Although we think IMN is philosophically and historically unsound, it may have proven fruitful in bringing about the success of the scientific enterprise. Since IMN promises a reconciliation between science and religion, it may have helped in uniting people from different backgrounds and with different worldviews in the collaborative enterprise that science is. Arguably, this would have been more difficult if the naturalistic outlook of science had been perceived as a direct challenge to religion. Even today, scientific organizations like the NCSE and the NAS succeed in rallying the support of liberal theists and religious scientists by downplaying the conflict with religion (Ruse 2005, p. 45).

References

  • Allen, D. (1989). Christian belief in a postmodern world: The full wealth of conviction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution (10th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bledsoe, B. (2006). Every reason to be a Christian. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15(3), 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, M., & Leuridan, B. (2011). Where the design argument goes wrong: Auxiliary assumptions and unification. Philosophy of Science, 78(4), 558–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (2007). Monkey trials and gorilla sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to intelligent design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, J. A. (2009a). Seeing and believing. The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.tnr.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing.

  • Coyne, J. A. (2009b). Why evolution is true. New York NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1998 [1859]). The origin of species. Oxford: Oxford university press.

  • Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. London: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A. (1999). Intelligent design: The bridge between science and technology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A. (2004). The design revolution: Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2007). Atheism and evolution. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism (pp. 135–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • deVries, P. (1986). Naturalism in the natural sciences: A Christian perspective. Christian Scholar’s Review, 15(4), 388–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilley, S. C. (2010). Philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism: Strange bedfellows. Philosophia Christi, 12(1), 118–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edis, T. (1998). Taking creationism seriously. Skeptic, 6(2), 56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edis, T. (2002). The ghost in the universe: God in light of modern science. Amherst, NY: Prometheus books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fales, E. (2009). Animadversions on Kitzmiller v. Dover: Correct ruling, flawed reasoning. Infidels. Retrieved from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/evan_fales/intelligent-design.html.

  • Fishman, Y. I. (2009). Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education, 18(6–7), 813–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism: Clarifying the connection. Philo, 3(2), 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2007). Science vs religion? Intelligent design and the problem of evolution. Cambridge: Polity press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gish, D. T. (1973). Evolution: The fossils say no!. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1980). The panda’s thumb: More reflections in natural history (1st ed.). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1999). Non-overlapping magisteria. Skeptical Inquirer, 23, 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haught, J. F. (2000). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haught, J. F. (2003). Is nature enough? No. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 38(4), 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haught, J. F. (2004). Darwin, design, and divine providence. In W. Dembski & M. Ruse (Eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA (pp. 229–245). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

  • Hume, D. (2007 [1779]). Dialogues concerning natural religion and other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Humphrey, N. (1996). Soul searching: Human nature and supernatural belief. London: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1993). Darwin on trial (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1995). Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law and education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1997). The unraveling of scientific materialism. First Things, 77, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (2001). Evolution as Dogma: The establishment of naturalism. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 59–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. E. (2005). Kitzmiller v. Dover. 400 F. Supp. 2nd 707 (M.D. Pa.) 2005.

  • Lewontin, R. (1997). Billions and billions of demons. Book review of ‘the demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the Dark’ by Carl Sagan. The New York Review of Books, 44(1), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, N. (1974). Darwin retried: An appeal to reason. London: Garnstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M. (2011). The role of metaphysical naturalism in science. Science & Education. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9421-9.

  • McMullin, E. (2001). Plantinga’s defense of special creation. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 168–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. R. (2000). Finding Darwin’s God: A scientist’s search for common ground between God and evolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. B. (2009). The misguided attack on methodological naturalism. In J. S. Schneiderman & W. D. Allmon (Eds.), For the rock record: Geologists on intelligent design (pp. 117–140). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (2008). Public education and intelligent design. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(2), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. A. (1996). The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 493–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. A. (1998). Jettison the arguments, or the rule? The place of Darwinian theological themata in evolutionary reasoning retrieved March, 23 2009, from http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm.

  • Numbers, R. (2003). Science without God: Natural laws and Christian beliefs. In D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), When science and Christianity meet (pp. 265–285). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. [Article]. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 4(1), 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A. (1996). Methodological Naturalism? In J. van der Meer (Ed.), Facets of faith and science, volume 1: Historiography and modes of interaction (pp. 177–221). Lanham: University Press of America.

  • Plantinga, A. (2001a). Evolution, neutrality, and antecedent probability: A reply to McMullin and Van Till. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 197–236). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A. (2001b). Methodological naturalism? In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 339–361). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A. (2001c). When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 113–145). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzsch, D. (2005). How Not to Critique Intelligent Design Theory. Ars Disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 5, 1–18.

  • Ruse, M. (2001). Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The relationship between science and religion. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2005). Methodological naturalism under attack. South African Journal of Philosophy, 24(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. C. (1998). Two kinds of materialism: Keeping them separate makes faith and science compatible. Free Inquiry, 18, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, N. (2004). God, the devil, and Darwin: A critique of intelligent design theory. Oxford: Oxford university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. C. (2000). Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 20(4), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. C. (2001). Appealing to ignorance behind the cloak of ambiguity. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 705–735). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2010). Evolution without naturalism. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.), Oxford studies in philosophy of religion (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenger, V. J. (2008). God: The failed hypothesis: How science shows that God does not exist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanona, S. (2010). The pursuit of the natural. Philosophical Studies, 148(1), 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Till, H. J. (1996). Basil, Augustine, and the doctrine of creation’s functional integrity. Science and Christian Belief, 8, 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Till, H. J. (2001). When faith and reason cooperate. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 147–163). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Till, H. J., & Johnson, P. E. (1993). God and evolution: An exchange. First Things, 34, 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woetzel, D. (2005). Can science consider supernatural explanations? Creation Matters, 10(4), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jerry Coyne, Taner Edis, Massimo Pigliucci, Griet Vandermassen and John Teehan for stimulating discussions and comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman

Authors
  1. Maarten Boudry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefaan Blancke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan Braeckman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Boudry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boudry, M., Blancke, S. & Braeckman, J. Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat. Sci & Educ 21, 1151–1165 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9446-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9446-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation