Both essays on intelligent design make good points. But I take exception to Mano Singham’s reduction of the scientific quest to the mere process of answering “the immediate questions of interest to scientists,” as opposed to seeking some truth. That reduction is as misguided as it is dangerous; it devalues science by placing it at the same level as social criticism and is essentially a repetition of the muddle-headed postmodernist arguments.
Granted, to a certain extent, the point is obviously true for some of the minor scientific theories that are in debate at any one time. But it completely fails to account for the major theories and advances. Were Johannes Kepler and Galileo simply engaged in some kind of inconsequential quest to answer the fashionable questions of their time? Did they discover some truth about planetary motions, or did they simply answer those questions to please the sensibilities of their contemporaries? Was Charles Darwin similarly engaged in a quest for some truth or for some fashionable theory? And where would Singham place the present search for extraterrestrial life? Is that also merely a question of present interest to scientists, or is it a quest after some momentous truth that can change us forever? Pronouncements such as “to be valid, science does not have to be true” merely serve to demonstrate how far common sense can be confused by words.
Revolutions in science are ultimately revolutions in how we see ourselves as humans, so the progress of science is, to a large extent, the progress of humanity. That is the core fact that creationists and postmodernists find so difficult to accept. Although they start from different premises, both groups have a need to reduce science to an enterprise that has only some relative value within its own limited circle of practitioners. When they have accomplished that, they can promulgate their own views—free of evidentiary support—as if those views were equivalent to what science has to offer.
So, although Singham’s essay appears to be supportive of science, I submit that science would be better off without such support.
