Literature

It is an unusual experience to read a paper where Elliott Sober, Larry Laudan, George Williams and Richard Dawkins are all taken to task for daring to put in a good word for William Paley.

"Unfortunately the philosophers make some serious philosophical mistakes and join these to a good portion of irredeemably bad history. The biologists on the other hand are historically mistaken about what Paley was actually up to and philosophically forgetful about what they themselves are up to."

Some of William Paley's foes are willing to approve some of his arguments

What alarms Peter McLaughlin, philosopher of science, is that

"William Paley has been enjoying a rather strong revival of late and has acquired admirers from a quarter that would have surprised him greatly. [. . .] The fact that philosophical naturalists at the turn of the twenty-first century should find value in his arguments is something Paley would have found too good to be true."

The heart of McLaughlin's paper is a critical appraisal of Sober's analysis of creationism. There are no principled reasons, according to Sober, for excluding creationism from science, and the ground for excluding creationism from education is that it is 'bad science' that has been falsified. In developing this position, Sober has acknowledged that, when Paley was writing, the creation explanation was "scientifically acceptable as the best explanation available before Darwin". McLaughlin systematically demolishes this position:

"The problem with this elegant argument is that many of the crucial facts about the history of science and the history of philosophy are wrong and the systematic philosophical argumentation is flawed. [. . .] It is straightforward, clear and appealing - but ultimately untenable."

The quotation below gives an insight into McLaughlin's disagreement with the two biologists:

"Two of the most prominent proponents of adaptationism in recent biology, George Williams and Richard Dawkins, have gone out of their way to praise Paley. [. . .] Dawkins even goes out on a limb with the assertion that 'Paley's argument . . . is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day'. Paley, he believes, 'had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation'. Neither of Dawkins's assertions is true."

It is not my purpose in this blog to unpack these points of controversy (the paper needs to be read before doing that), but there is merit in drawing attention to McLaughlin's understanding of science itself. He writes: "Modern science explains natural (material) processes and events by adducing natural (material) processes and events." Presumably, we have to add, 'except when the processes and events are not natural (as is the case with archaeological science and forensic science)'. Then, it is perfectly legitimate to invoke intelligent agency alongside natural processes and events.

Should science be open to intelligent agency when it comes to origins? The answer has to be 'yes' - otherwise science becomes a tool to ensure philosophical naturalism dominates our thinking. Falsification of intelligent agency is then pre-empted by dogma rather than being a matter of science. Most people have a perception of science that researchers are open to truth and are not working within the constraints of a particular ideology. Perhaps McLaughlin is conscious of this problem in his own thinking when he notes: "It is often considered mere dogmatism to insist that naturalism is a presupposition of science." Let there be no doubt that he is advocating this dogma: according to McLaughlin, "secular science" is authentic science.

Regarding science education, McLaughlin has strong views:

"Most of us who are strongly against having creationism taught in biology class are against it because we value science and don't want our children to acquire a debased view of science or to conflate it with religious sectarianism."

Substitute "secular science" or "philosophical naturalism" for "creationism" in this quote, and you have a good idea why there is an ongoing tension. Ultimately, the differences are not about the data of science, but about epistemology and philosophical foundations.

Reverend Paley's naturalist revival
Peter McLaughlin
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39(1), March 2008, 25-37.

Abstract: This paper analyzes the remarkable popularity of William Paley's argument from design among contemporary naturalists in biology and the philosophy of science. In philosophy of science Elliott Sober has argued that creationism should be excluded from the schools not because it is not science but because it is 'less likely' than evolution according to fairly standard confirmation theory. Creationism is said to have been a plausible scientific option as presented by Paley but no longer to be acceptable according to the same standards that once approved it. In biology C. G. Williams and Richard Dawkins have seen in Paley a proto-adaptationist. This paper shows that the historical assumptions of Sober's arguments are wrong and that the philosophical arguments themselves take alternatives to science to be alternatives in science and conflate the null hypothesis, chance, with a competing explanatory hypothesis. It is also shown that the similarity of Paley's adaptationism to that of contemporary biology is not what it is made out to be.