ID in der Diskussion nach Dover

Der Dover-Prozess um ID, an sich meines Erachtens ein interessantes Beispiel für die gesellschaftlichen Begleiterscheinungen von ID in den USA, hat dazu geführt, dass sich einige Philosophen verstärkt mit von ID aufgeworfenen Sachfragen beschäftigen.

Dabei fällt auf, dass sie viel ungerechtfertigte Kritik an ID zurückweisen und sehr populäre wissenschaftsphilosophische Argumente, wonach der Schluss auf Planung aufgrund bestimmter Kriterien grundsätzlich wissenschaftlich nicht in Frage käme, als wenig fundiert einstufen. Ich möchte hier auf einige entsprechende Arbeiten hinweisen und einige Zitate anführen (Hervorhebungen von mir), die Interesse stimulieren könnten. Ich stimme nicht notwendigerweise mit Inhalt und Formulierung der zitierten Passagen überein.

Man beachte, dass drei der Autoren betonen Atheisten zu sein und keiner der Autoren mit Kritik an ID spart. Für ID-Vertreter ergibt sich hier die Möglichkeit von konstruktiver Kritik zu profitieren und gleichzeitig auf Argumente gegen ungerechtfertigte oder fragwürdige Kritikversuche zurückzugreifen.


Nagel, Thomas (2008): Public Education and Intelligent Design. Philosophy & Public Affairs 36 (no.2): 187-205

„But the conflicts aired in this trial—over the status of evolutionary theory, the arguments for intelligent design, and the nature of science—reveal an intellectually unhealthy situation. The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.“

„The claim that ID is not a scientific theory implies that even if there were scientific evidence against evolutionary theory, which was originally introduced as an alternative to design, that would not constitute any scientific evidence for ID. We might have to give up evolutionary theory, but then we would be constrained by the canons or definition of science to look for a different scientific, i.e., nonpurposive, explanation of the development of life, because science prohibits us from even considering ID as a possible alternative explanation, one whose eligibility would otherwise be enhanced by the rejection of the leading scientific explanation, namely evolutionary theory.“

„So the purposes and intentions of God, if there is a god, and the nature of his will, are not possible subjects of a scientific theory or scientific explanation. But that does not imply that there cannot be scientific evidence for or against the intervention of such a non-law-governed cause in the natural order.“

Koperski, Jeffry (2008): Two bad ways to attack Intelligent Design and two good ones. Zygon, vol.43, no.2, 433-449

„That MN (Anmerkung: methodological naturalism) is responsible for rescuing science from supernatural design is doubtful. As far as I can tell, historical confrontations between naturalistic and design hypotheses were settled by inference to the best explanation using the explanatory virtues just mentioned. The appeal to MN is a more recent move.“

„ID critics have argued that MN is sacrosanct. In his Dover testimony, Pennock claimed that “This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as ‘methodological naturalism’ and is sometimes known as the scientific method” (Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005, 83). Naturalistic explanations are not merely desirable, they are “an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention” (p. 84). ID violates MN and thus “by definition” it cannot be science. As I read it, Pennock appears to have solved the demarcation problem. If so, why has this not appeared in the Journal of Philosophy?“

Fuller, Steven (2008): Dissent over Descent. Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism. Icon Books, Crows Nest

„It is here that ID's creationism surfaces, specifically the ide that humanity is created 'in the image and likeness of God' – in imago dei, to recall St Augustine's 4th- century shorthand. Yet, contrary to the way in which its detractors depict it, ID is hardly a 'science stopping' form of creationism. On the contrary, ID was behind the great scientific revolution that has been underway in the West since the 17th century, and it continues to provide the most powerful reason for doing science: nature is constructed so that we may understand and exercise dominion over it.“

Monton, Bradley (2006): Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592/

„If our goal is to believe truth and avoid falsehood, and if we are rational people who take into account evidence in deciding what to believe, then we need to focus on the question of what evidence there is for and against ID. The issue of whether ID counts as “science” according to some contentious answer to the demarcation question is unimportant.“

„If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic.“

„But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice. If lots of evidence comes in against naturalism, investigation of the world that assumes naturalism has the potential to become otiose. Given the commitment to methodological naturalism, the success of science hinges on the contingent fact that the evidence strongly suggests that naturalism is true.
I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism. Our successful scientific theories are naturalistic simply because this is the way the evidence points; this leaves open the possibility that, on the basis of new evidence, there could be supernatural scientific theories. I conclude that ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there.“