Methodological Neutralism

[mhatch]

I'm interested in member's thoughts on this paper about replacing Methodological Naturalism with Methodological Neutralism:

 

Replacing Methodological Naturalism :: Robert A. Delfino :: Global Spiral

[JMJones0424]

I am trying to compose a response worthy of the paper written by Mr. Delfino, but it will take me a while. Hopefully someone else will beat me to the punch, but it will be a useful exercise for me nonetheless. My first impression is that the writer misses the whole point of science.

 

What is the proper understanding of science? Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of science. In fact, some philosophers of science have argued that all known attempts to distinguish science from non-science have failed.

 

Science is not the pursuit of knowledge. Science (at least from a methodological naturalism point of view) is a long string of falsifiable statements made about observations, or falsifiable predictions on what will be observed in the future. Ontology can be more forgiving, but in order to be useful, it must be consistent with epistemology. When one introduces the supernatural to epistemology, you lose the ability to test hypotheses. I call it "wave the magic wand" logic, and it is more than just unnecessary in science, it is detrimental to understanding.

 

This is not to say that historically there hasn't been a place for supernatural ontologies in science. Alchemy eventually led to chemistry. Astrology led to astronomy. But it was the abandonment of the "wave the magic wand" philosophy that allowed these fields to mature scientifically. Any hypothesis (Intelligent Design) that is not falsifiable has no place in modern science. If one wishes to teach supernatural ontologies, you can do so where they belong, in a religion class. To try to re-form science so that it is acceptable to a supernatural ontology is counter-productive.

 

More to come.

RAmen

[mhatch]

I am trying to compose a response worthy of the paper written by Mr. Delfino, but it will take me a while.

I look forward to it!

 

I call it "wave the magic wand" logic, and it is more than just unnecessary in science, it is detrimental to understanding.

 

Although I am a Christian, I totally agree that 'god of the gaps' is always troublesome to anyone seeking an explanation that includes how the material world works. (The Bible itself says that at some point a step of faith is required.) But how will we know when we run out of places to research/test? Will our efforts simply come to a standstill (i.e. what happens after we find the higgs boson? Do we build yet another super-super-collider?)? Just because our rational testing methods cannot test for the supernatural, does not indicate that the supernatural does not exist, it just means that a test won't indicate either way. It seems that a concept of methodological neutralism would allow us to ask good questions about this instead of asserting a-priori that the supernatural does not exist.

 

(My arguments may not be very well laid out since I'm not well educated, I'm contributing here in part to challenge my own skills, responses, and thinking.)

[jedaisoul]

I'm interested in member's thoughts on this paper about replacing Methodological Naturalism with Methodological Neutralism:

The claim "God did it" is indistinguishable from saying "we do not know the cause". This is because, if we did know the cause, it would not be supernatural. I.e. If there were empirical evidence of the actions of a "supernatural" body, that body would no longer be supernatural, it would take its rightful place in the natural world.

 

Therefore I see no grounds for replacing Methodological Naturalism with Methodological Neutralism. Methodological Naturalism encompasses all real phenomena, which would include the "supernatural", should the "supernatural" ever be shown to be real.

[JMJones0424]

Mhatch- I too, am not well educated. But the beauty of science is that to understand the concepts, as long as you are scientifically literate, you don't need a doctorate level education. I hope I can explain my views in a way that is useful to both of us.

 

After completely discarding a few drafts, and entirely changing my approach, this is what I have come up with. The paper appears to me to be a transparent attempt to justify teaching ID as a viable theory. There are numerous sources, including some threads on this site, that do a very good job of covering why ID isn't scientific, so I don't feel the need to re-hash that subject (I could likely never do as good of a job as others have anyway). But this paper is not strictly about ID, but rather why there is a proscription of the supernatural in epistemological studies.

 

There is a lot wrong with the paper, but an itemized rebuttal would be too long for this venue, and I am not qualified to do this. Instead, I will focus on a few paragraphs that seem to be the basis of Mr. Delfino's logic, and try to explain why I think he is wrong.

 

... Should naturalism be a necessary condition of science? Philip Johnson, who is part of the Intelligent Design movement, has argued that the answer is “no” for several reasons. First, naturalism is not a scientific view based on empirical evidence. Second, naturalism is an unproven philosophical view that persons accept or reject as a matter of choice. As Johnson puts it, naturalism is “a dogmatic statement about the nature of the universe.” But dogma does not belong in science.

 

However, not everyone holds that naturalism is a necessary condition of science. For example, Robert T. Pennock, a philosopher of science, agrees that “If science assumed [metaphysical naturalism] … then Johnson’s charge of scientific dogmatism might have some merit.” Instead, Pennock agrees with Michael Ruse, another philosopher of science, that science only assumes methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an epistemological principle that governs how science is practiced. It prohibits the use of supernatural explanations in science. However, unlike metaphysical naturalism, it does not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities. As Ruse explains: “n no sense is the methodological naturalist … committed to the denial of God’s existence. It is simply that the methodological naturalist insists that, in as much as one is doing science, one avoid all theological or other religious references.”

 

But should methodological naturalism be a necessary condition of science? Against Ruse, Plantinga has argued that the answer is “no.” Who is correct? To answer this question we must first answer a more basic question: What is the proper understanding of science? Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of science. In fact, some philosophers of science have argued that all known attempts to distinguish science from non-science have failed. This makes our task more difficult and we cannot get around this difficulty by merely stipulating that science should be defined to include (or to exclude) methodological naturalism. Such a stipulation would beg the question at hand. Therefore, if we wish to justify the use of methodological naturalism in science, a different type of argument must be given. For example, Niall Shanks, a philosopher of science, argues that methodological naturalism is “an inductive generalization derived from 300 to 400 years of scientific experience.” Inductive arguments, however, do not demonstrate their conclusions with certainty; therefore this is not enough to justify its use as a necessary condition of science

 

I find it ironic that the writer includes the very point most damaging to his view, yet proceeds to then ignore the point because it doesn't agree with his view. As jedaisoul pointed out, "god did it" is never an acceptable answer. But the paper questions why it isn't, or more generally why supernatural epistemologies are prohibited.

 

In the following, when I refer to science, I am referring to "hard science" based on measurable and verifiable observations. Some realms of science do not entirely fit this definition (psychology and sociology for example), and for this reason there is a certain amount of opinion involved. I am not interested in debating opinions, but rather in showing why the supernatural can not be a part of epistemological science.

 

1. Science is unbiased. Mr Delfino's claim that methodological naturalism is in fact biased against the supernatural is addressed in the bold text in the passage I quoted. His logic is flawed because he assumes supernatural beings exist, or at least could exist. Proper science assumes nothing. There is no verifiable evidence of supernatural entities or events, therefor there is no reason to use their influence to explain currently unexplained phenomenon.

 

2. Science is universal. Views of the supernatural are primarily influenced by the geographic location or culture that one is born into. Science, on the other hand, does not require any preconceived notions to be held, and can be equally verified anywhere in the universe.

 

3. Science (more specifically the scientific method) is a tool, or a technology, used to describe the universe, and to uncover previously unknown truths about the universe. In every instance, this tool has increased in its ability to accurately predict observations by eliminating supernatural influence. Nature appears unpredictable only because of our misunderstandings or lack of knowledge. However, as knowledge of the universe has increased, never has there been a need to use supernatural ideas to accurately explain observed phenomenon.

 

Mr. Delfino's position seems to be that because we can't know that the supernatural doesn't exist, we should at least be willing to entertain it's existence in epistemological studies. My position is that because we can't know that the supernatural exists, we should strive to exclude is involvement when studying things that do exist. His position seems to be that because we do not have perfect knowledge of the universe, we must never exclude any possible explanation. My position is that in order to better understand the universe, we must focus on what we can know, and strive to better understand the unknown, not the unknowable.

 

What are your thoughts?

[mhatch]

Thanks for your thoughtful response JM!

 

I would summarize my impression and my own thoughts on this as follows: "God did it" is never an acceptable final answer while we draw breath and have more opportunity to study - life is the never-ending pursuit of the unknown. But along the way, when we bump up against the unknown (I'll speak to 'unknowable' in a moment), there are points where we ask new questions - 'what could that be?'. Mr. Delfino seems to be saying "Why can't the quesiton be , 'Could that be supernatural?'" Upon which we then delve more deeply with testing to find out (and continue to learn and know more). It is not an explanation, but rather a carrot, that we continue to follow in life's pursuit. The current search for the Higgs Boson (colloquially 'The God Particle') is rather poignant example.

 

I find it ironic that the writer includes the very point most damaging to his view, yet proceeds to then ignore the point because it doesn't agree with his view. As jedaisoul pointed out, "god did it" is never an acceptable answer. But the paper questions why it isn't, or more generally why supernatural epistemologies are prohibited.

 

I'm not sure which point you mean.

 

1. Science is unbiased.

The scientific method is. People never are.

 

His logic is flawed because he assumes supernatural beings exist, or at least could exist. Proper science assumes nothing. There is no verifiable evidence of supernatural entities or events, therefor there is no reason to use their influence to explain currently unexplained phenomenon.

Isn't using the statement 'there is no verifiable evidence of supernatural' assuming a truth that there there is indeed no supernatural so it should be eliminated from testing? Lack of evidence doesn't equate to truth, does it?

 

2. Science is universal. Views of the supernatural are primarily influenced by the geographic location or culture that one is born into. Science, on the other hand, does not require any preconceived notions to be held, and can be equally verified anywhere in the universe.

 

<Warning, I think I'm talking in a circle here... :phones: You can call me on it.>

Wait. If there is no physical evidence for the supernatural, then 'views of the supernatural' are by definition faith. Yes? If testing began to reveal unexplainable things (supernatural things) I don't know that it would necessarily lead to faith. It would lead us to deeper research to find an explanation (that's what we're doing, isn't it?). We probably wouldn't stop until 'something/someone' stopped us (we'll only really discover the supernatural exists when it pushes back :cheer:). So isn't science still universal/equally verifiable even allowing for the supernatural? It doesn't seem to undermine learning, as long as we allow 'faith' to be exercised independently of the scientific method?

 

3. Science (more specifically the scientific method) is a tool, or a technology, used to describe the universe, and to uncover previously unknown truths about the universe. In every instance, this tool has increased in its ability to accurately predict observations by eliminating supernatural influence. Nature appears unpredictable only because of our misunderstandings or lack of knowledge. However, as knowledge of the universe has increased, never has there been a need to use supernatural ideas to accurately explain observed phenomenon.

Could it be said that the scientific method doesn't eliminate supernatural influence, but rather sheds light on real truth where we once though the supernatural was? Why does the argument need to be 'we have to eliminate supernatural influence?' - I don't think it changes the results of honest searchers either way (as long as they really are honest and relinquish their claims of 'God did it'). Galileo, Newton, Kepler, all were pursuing knowledge of real truth in order to understand their God's world better.

 

Mr. Delfino's position seems to be that because we can't know that the supernatural doesn't exist, we should at least be willing to entertain it's existence in epistemological studies. My position is that because we can't know that the supernatural exists, we should strive to exclude is involvement when studying things that do exist.

Isn't 'striving to exclude [the supernaturals] involvement' a bit of an oxymoron? You don't need to strive to exclude it becuase you've already defined it as untestable.

 

His position seems to be that because we do not have perfect knowledge of the universe, we must never exclude any possible explanation. My position is that in order to better understand the universe, we must focus on what we can know, and strive to better understand the unknown, not the unknowable.

Cannot scientific pursuit, allowing for the possibility of supernatural (flowing from a mind of faith of whatever kind) allow for the position you state (bolded)? By definition we will never know the supernatural (the unknowable) until it 'knows us back'.

[jedaisoul]

mhatch, it would appear that you have not answered my point:

Methodological Naturalism encompasses all real phenomena, which would include the "supernatural", should the "supernatural" ever be shown to be real.

Do you agree that this is valid? If so, there is no need for Methodological Neutralism.

 

Cannot scientific pursuit, allowing for the possibility of supernatural (flowing from a mind of faith of whatever kind) allow for the position you state (bolded)? By definition we will never know the supernatural (the unknowable) until it 'knows us back'.

There is no need for science to presume that ID might be true because it has already been shown to be unfounded. (See Wikipedia). Just as the idea that the Sun orbits the Earth has been shown to be unfounded.

 

Are you saying that science should allow the possibility that the Sun might orbit the Earth after all? At least that claim has some empirical evidence to support it. From our Earthly view point the Sun does appear to orbit the Earth. We see it rise and set every day.

[JMJones0424]

...

The current search for the Higgs Boson (colloquially 'The God Particle') is rather poignant example.

 

I disagree. Referring to the Higgs Boson as "The God Particle" is usually done by the media because it sounds a heck of a lot more important than the Higgs Boson. In actual fact, it has utterly nothing at all to do with either god or the supernatural.

 

I'm not sure which point you mean.

 

The point is that methodological naturalism is absolutely indifferent to the existence or non-existence of god, shiva, zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster. These concepts are unmeasurable, and therefor superfluous when one is trying to describe that which is measurable.

 

1. Science is unbiased

The scientific method is. People never are.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about science. One's own ontological framework will undoubtedly influence how you view the world, but while ontologies can be evaluated for internal consistency and relevance, they can not be "proven" per say. This is why I have tried to limit this discussion to the specific topic addressed by the paper, methodological naturalism

 

 

Isn't using the statement 'there is no verifiable evidence of supernatural' assuming a truth that there there is indeed no supernatural so it should be eliminated from testing? Lack of evidence doesn't equate to truth, does it?

 

The supernatural, by definition, is outside of the realm of that which can be measured, which places it BY DEFINITION outside of epistemology. This was addressed by the paper, but then promptly ignored. The fact that the supernatural is outside of the realm of what can be measured is a statement of fact by definition alone. How do you propose to test for the untestable? This is not a lack of evidence, this is a matter of defining the supernatural to be that which is unmeasurable. If you can propose a means to test for the existence of things which are now considered supernatural, then by all means feel free to do so. However, until you can verify it's existence, it will remain supernatural and therefor outside of the realm of methodological naturalism.

 

<Warning, I think I'm talking in a circle here... :phones: You can call me on it.>

Wait. If there is no physical evidence for the supernatural, then 'views of the supernatural' are by definition faith. Yes? If testing began to reveal unexplainable things (supernatural things) I don't know that it would necessarily lead to faith. It would lead us to deeper research to find an explanation (that's what we're doing, isn't it?). We probably wouldn't stop until 'something/someone' stopped us (we'll only really discover the supernatural exists when it pushes back :cheer:). So isn't science still universal/equally verifiable even allowing for the supernatural? It doesn't seem to undermine learning, as long as we allow 'faith' to be exercised independently of the scientific method?

 

ding ding ding :)

 

Nothing about methodological naturalism states that the supernatural doesn't exist. All that is required is that you recognize that the supernatural by definition is not a part of the natural, and therefor can not be addressed by methodological naturalism.

 

Could it be said that the scientific method doesn't eliminate supernatural influence, but rather sheds light on real truth where we once though the supernatural was? Why does the argument need to be 'we have to eliminate supernatural influence?' - I don't think it changes the results of honest searchers either way (as long as they really are honest and relinquish their claims of 'God did it'). Galileo, Newton, Kepler, all were pursuing knowledge of real truth in order to understand their God's world better...

 

My wording was poor, but it seems you understood anyway.

 

Science is a tool to help us describe and understand the patterns and relationships that we see in nature. To ask, "Why can't the supernatural also be a part of that tool" is just as pointless as to ask, "Why can't I use a block of cheese to hammer a nail?" The answer is that you can, but why?

[Qfwfq]

I disagree. Referring to the Higgs Boson as "The God Particle" is usually done by the media because it sounds a heck of a lot more important than the Higgs Boson. In actual fact, it has utterly nothing at all to do with either god or the supernatural.

The supernatural no, but the "being God" expression is used colloquially by physicists in the sense of having the complete information with which to work things out.

 

At the atomic and molecular level, the information for applying QM has been known well enough for the past few decades and so chemists have already been in the position to say "we are God" in the same sense. At worst, it's a matter of sufficient computational power or quantitative precision of the fundamental values. In principle however, chemists already are God and particle physicists will be too if the standard model turns out to be correct including the Higgs boson.

[mhatch]

mhatch, it would appear that you have not answered my point:

 

Do you agree that this is valid? If so, there is no need for Methodological Neutralism.

If all naturalists held to the opinion that methodological naturalism can include the supernatural, I would agree. The definition and use of the term varies, so in the end I think what Mr. Delfino is arguing for is a term that has shared consistent meaning.

 

Are you saying that science should allow the possibility that the Sun might orbit the Earth after all? At least that claim has some empirical evidence to support it. From our Earthly view point the Sun does appear to orbit the Earth. We see it rise and set every day.

 

These two things are not the same (evidence of design vs. sun revolving around the earth), so no I'm not saying that and I don't think your comparison is valid.

 

Thanks!

-Mike

[jedaisoul]

If all naturalists held to the opinion that methodological naturalism can include the supernatural, I would agree. The definition and use of the term varies, so in the end I think what Mr. Delfino is arguing for is a term that has shared consistent meaning.

That is not what I said. Naturalists are quite consistent. There is no place for the supernatural in the description of nature. Period.

 

The point I was making was that IF there were empirical evidence of the "supernatural", it would no longer be "supernatural". It would become part of the natural world. All naturalists would agree with the inclusion of phenomena which may previously have been considered to be "supernatural" (i.e. unexplained) on that basis.

 

What Mr Delfino is asking for is for supernatural phenomena to be accepted as possible causes OUTSIDE the natural world. That does not make sense. If there is evidence for it, then it is included anyway. If there isn't then there is no reason to include it as a possible cause. Science describes the NATURAL world. It does not attempt to describe the supernatural.

 

These two things are not the same (evidence of design vs. sun revolving around the earth), so no I'm not saying that and I don't think your comparison is valid.

Did you read the Wikipedia article? If you had, I think you would see that they are entirely comparable. Both claims have been considered by science and rejected. There is no debate in scientific circles about either, because both have been shown to be wrong. I quote:

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

Professor Behe's claims were rejected on the same grounds that the geocentric model of the universe was: NEITHER FITTED THE FACTS.

[mhatch]

Did you read the Wikipedia article? If you had, I think you would see that they are entirely comparable. Both claims have been considered by science and rejected. There is no debate in scientific circles about either, because both have been shown to be wrong. I quote:

 

Professor Behe's claims were rejected on the same grounds that the geocentric model of the universe was: NEITHER FITTED THE FACTS.

 

I had not read the wiki article, but I just looked at it, and I don't see any mention of point you are making (geocentrism, etc.) - are you referring to a referenced article from there?

 

Nevertheless, since you're supporting your arguments with reference to these court cases I'll weigh in on that.

 

The trouble with recent creationist or ID court cases is that all have put forward 'Young Earth Creationism' as the model they would like to see taught. This was overt in original court cases, and in the case of ID it is thinly veiled (and most evolutionists can see right through that). The ID movement tries to remain independent by allowing for 'all types of creationist belief', but I think that models that clearly contradict current scientific understanding such as YE should be disavowed.

 

You're pointing out that ID is as disproven as geocentrism, but I would prefer to make a distinction and say that some types of creationism are as disproven as geocentrism, specifically Young Earth creationism. The courts were right to keep this out of the schools - as the wiki article states in the opening paragraph, they were protecting against the establishment of religion that teaches views that require abandonment of scientific understanding.

 

Summarizing the points being made about methodological naturalism, I think you and I are stating practically the same things, just from different viewpoints.

 

I still don't think that all evolutionists practice or hold methodological naturalism in the open sense you've described, or the way it (methodological naturalism, not neutralism) is described in Delfino's article.

[jedaisoul]

I had not read the wiki article, but I just looked at it, and I don't see any mention of point you are making (geocentrism, etc.) - are you referring to a referenced article from there?

I made different points. The reference to Wikipedia was about ID. The point about geocentrism was mine. If you want a quote about geocentrism, try this.

 

The ID movement tries to remain independent by allowing for 'all types of creationist belief', but I think that models that clearly contradict current scientific understanding such as YE should be disavowed.

Good.

 

You're pointing out that ID is as disproven as geocentrism, but I would prefer to make a distinction and say that some types of creationism are as disproven as geocentrism, specifically Young Earth creationism.

No. The scientific evidence quoted was against intelligent design, not YE creationism. ID has been shown to be false. Creationism, of any type, cannot rely on ID for support.

 

That still leaves my other point:

What Mr Delfino is asking for is for supernatural phenomena to be accepted as possible causes OUTSIDE the natural world. That does not make sense. If there is evidence for it, then it is included anyway. If there isn't then there is no reason to include it as a possible cause. Science describes the NATURAL world. It does not attempt to describe the supernatural.

 

The bottom line is creationism is not science and should not be taught in science lessons. Whether religious studies should be taught in schools, as they are in the UK, is a different question. But that is nothing to do with science.

[JMJones0424]

mhatch- I think you may be allowing your bias against metaphysical naturalism to skew your views on methodological naturalism. It is important to distinguish between the two, because in the case of BOTH Mr. Delfino and in some cases Richard Dawkins and those that creationist could classify as "proselytizing atheists", they are asserting that their ontological views should dictate how epistemological studies are carried out.

 

The wikipedia article referenced by jedaisoul shows how irreducible complexity, which is one of the fundamental assertions upon which the ID model has been founded, has been disproven. This is why it is equivalent to a geo-centric model, which has also been disproven. Therefor, ID can be thrown out as a viable theory based on science alone.

 

However, this paper does not specifically address ID, and it is my contention that under methodological naturalism, which I feel is the most useful way to go about "hard science", ID is not even an appropriate scientific theory to begin with. Even if we were not able to throw out irreducible complexity by disproving its assumptions, it still would not be a scientific theory because it relies on supernatural explanations to describe (what would therefor be) phenomenon whose causes are not well understood. When conducting science, it should never be acceptable to equate "I don't know" to "god (or something supernatural) did it". I have tried in post five to this thread to lay out why I think this must be. The author argues that methodological naturalism need not be a foundation upon which to build science, but I feel it is the only foundation yet devised that allows for all three points I made in post 5.

 

Newton, Galileo, Mendel, and many others had ontological views that included the supernatural. But they were able to make contributions to science specifically because they did not allow supernatural explanations for the natural phenomenon they were studying. I think it is imperative to maintain that objectiveness in order to be relevant.

 

BTW, ID is not necessarily (in my mind at least) a part of "creationism". It seeks instead to offer an alternative to evolution. Abiogenesis is the scientific attempt to discover how life originally arose from inanimate matter, and would therefor more appropriately be the scientific alternative to creationism.

[mhatch]

mhatch- I think you may be allowing your bias against metaphysical naturalism to skew your views on methodological naturalism.

Well I'm not sure I could offer a definition for metaphysical naturalism, so I may be arguing incorrectly based on my ignorance. :hihi:

 

The wikipedia article referenced by jedaisoul shows how irreducible complexity, which is one of the fundamental assertions upon which the ID model has been founded, has been disproven.

ID as a specific movement/statement aside, I do not accept that the possibility of design in the universe has been disproven - we discover greater fine tuning and unique elements for life on earth every day.

 

BTW, ID is not necessarily (in my mind at least) a part of "creationism". It seeks instead to offer an alternative to evolution. Abiogenesis is the scientific attempt to discover how life originally arose from inanimate matter, and would therefor more appropriately be the scientific alternative to creationism.

 

I'm not sure I follow this last paragraph - you distinguish ID as not creationism and then suggest a different alternative to creationism? I haven't read about Abiogenesis nonetheless, thanks for the link.

[jedaisoul]

ID as a specific movement/statement aside, I do not accept that the possibility of design in the universe has been disproven - we discover greater fine tuning and unique elements for life on earth every day.

Are you making these claims as putative science or belief? If as science, then you need to provide specific examples, and evidence of properly controlled research. If you do not have that then your claims are mere hearsay, and have no scientific merit.

 

If your comments are a matter of belief, then they are not relevant to a discussion of what is, or is not, science.

[JMJones0424]

I wish I had known of this presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson when this discussion was taking place. Anyone interested in dealing with the philosophical bent towards ID that seems to be permeating popular culture in the US should view this. His perspective is that it is not important that 85% of scientists don't believe in god, but that 15% do. He examines why even some of the greatest thinkers of all time invoke god when they reach the limit of their understanding... and then fail to continue their discoveries.

 

YouTube - The God of the Gaps (by Neil deGrasse Tyson) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

 

"ID, while real in the history of science... is none-the-less, a philosophy of ignorance..."