The Turtle and the Fencepost: On Science, the Search for Truth, and the Teaching of ID in the Public Schools
“But Intelligent Design isn’t science!”
This is the argument that we are commonly hearing from Darwinists these days, as proponents of Intelligent Design seek “equal treatment” in public schools around the country. No less than George W. Bush has weigned in on the side of the presentation of ID, while Screamin’ Howie Dean has derided the idea, using language similar to the above.
The problem, and the rub, in a nutshell, can be boiled down to this: are we interested in teaching “science”, or are we interested in teaching truth? Perhaps this analogy will be helpful:
Walking through the countryside one beautiful August afternoon, a man happens upon a turtle basking in the bright sunshine, situated precariously atop a fencepost. “My, what an odd sight,” the man exclaims, “to see a turtle perched thusly! I wonder what is up with this! Answers, I must have them!” 
And so the man sets about the process of discovering the facts of the situation, formulating a working hypothesis, and testing this hypothesis. “I must be scientific,”, he says, “and thus, I must produce a naturalistic answer to this dilemma. I must rule out any hypothesis which would depend upon untestable speculation; I cannot fall back on a ‘God hypothesis’, or invoke any ‘higher power’; this is the domain of ‘religion’.”
Satisfied that there exists such a naturalistic explanation, he first considers what he calls tentatively refers to as the “Growing Tree” hypothesis, which involves a tree rapidly growing on the spot, underneath this turtle, who in his infancy, managed the vigor to climb atop the fledgling sapling. Growing into a shape roughly approximating a fencepost, the tree suddenly dies, sheds not only leaves but limbs, all with the turtle still straddling its trunk at the top. But why would the vigorous young turtle have stopped movement? How could he have survived without food (or, better, via what mechanism was food provided?)? Could a tree grow this rapidly? This hypothesis the man rejected. Moving rather quickly on from this hypothesis, he found promise in what he began to think of as the “storm scenario”, and specifically, upon the “Tornado Hypothesis”, which suggested that, through a freak happenstance of nature, a localized tornado picked up the turtle and gently deposited him on the fencepost. Could a localized tornado accompish this? There certainly exists plenty of anecdotal evidence of happenings seemingly as strange as this one. He began to test and hypothesize, and hypothesize and test, and eventually, committed to “science”, having ruled out a priori the possibility of an intelligent agent accomplishing the turtle relocation, the man happily skipped away, confident that he had gained a measure of certainty as to the answer of the puzzling turtle dilemma.
Later on this same sunny late summer day, a second man happens upon the same turtle, still in the same position atop the fencepost. “My, what an odd sight,” the second man exclaims, “to see a turtle perched thusly! I wonder what is up with this! Answers, I must have them!” He, too, began to hypothesize about just how it was that the terrapin found his way to this peculiar piece of wooden real estate. He considered scenarios similar to the “Growing Tree” and “Tornado” Hypotheses, but found them unlikely and unconvincing. Could there be another explanation for this peculiar phenomenon, one calling for a step outside the realm of naturalistic causes? Seeing no person around, it would require a leap of faith to accept the possibility that a human agent had a hand in this, but nonetheless, open to this possibility, he arrived eventually at what he called the “Some Schmuck Put it There” Hypothesis.
Some thoughts:
1. This, effectively, is the scenario that we find going on in this debate. The scientific community (or, should I say, many, but not nearly all, members of it) are arguing against the teaching of ID because, in their words, “it’s not science”—because ID involves the introduction of an outside agent, and the existence of such an agent (as they rightly assert) is non-falsifiable.
2. Regarding the “Tornado Hypothesis”, the so-called “Anthropic Principle”, which seeks to establish the reasonability of ID on the basis that the earth is “just so”, calibrated perfectly for the existence of life, human and other, involves far more complex and intricate calibrations. In other words, a natural explanation for a turtle appearing upon a fencepost is far less difficult to account for than is a natural explanation for the development of life in the universe.
3. The argument put forward to defend Darwinism, in order to account for such things as the “Anthropic Principle”, often involves the postulating of “multiple potential universes” (that’s my own layman’s term; forgive its possible imprecision), with the idea being that, given a virtually unlimited number of universes that might have made some sort of start, eventually one would exist in which these “just-so” conditions would come to pass. Perhaps…but is this science, or metaphysics? Scientists do, at times, lapse into just this, metaphysical speculation to cover up the gaps—the very thing that is so derided about ID proponents.
4. The main point of my post is this: when it comes to the turtle on the fencepost, what should really matter: an explanation-in-a-parenthesis, the parenthesis of “what can be tested through the scientific method”, or truth? Shouldn’t it be about seeking the best explanation for the existence of the turtle perched up there? Isn’t that what ultimately matters most? And yet, truth is not what matters most to many “scientists” engaged in the debates about teaching ID in public schools, at least not if their own words are to be believed. What matters is “science”—as they choose to define it. ID proponents want to get at the truth of why we exist—and if the evidence leads us to believe that an intelligent, supernatural power designed life, so be it. The “scientists” want to rule out this possibility a priori; then, having ruled God out by definition, they want to confidently assert that they can say where life came from. This is a bait-and-switch; it is, ultimately, disingenuous. Let the debate be about finding the truth.
And so, just as if you are walking the countryside, and happen upon a turtle perched upon a fencepost, you conclude that “he probably had some help getting there”, so, as we look at the significant evidence of design in nature all around us, we ought to at least allow ourselves—and the children we teach in our schools—to consider the possibility that it was!
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
3 Responses to “The Turtle and the Fencepost: On Science, the Search for Truth, and the Teaching of ID in the Public Schools”
“I must be scientific,â€, he says, “and thus, I must produce a naturalistic answer to this dilemma.
People are part of nature. Hypotheses that account for people (see, eg: global warming) are naturalistic hypotheses.
So, for example, I walk into my office, and see my coworker’s coffee cup perched precariously on the refrigerator. Which is the better hypothesis: my coworker did it, or God did it? If you opt for the latter, there are probably some doctors that can help you with that.
jpe ~ Aug 26, 2005 at 1:12 pm
B – thnx for the note on the blog and the card. I’m not wired to the internet yet, though. I believe you also sent the card, so thanks as well.
Trying to get organized at home and otherwise. It’s still a ways uphill.
keep in touch…I will want to connect when I can.
matt b ~ Aug 27, 2005 at 11:32 am
JPE,
Of course, you’re right about that, and I thought that through before I posted; here’s my answer: my point was not meant regarding the viability of a person putting the turtle there (in which case, of course, you’re dead-on), but rather the idea that an explanation would be rejected a priori. The man rejected, a priori, the idea of “intelligent placing”, whereas some scientists reject, a priori, any notion of an intelligent agent designing life. Perhaps it could be said, as you make the point, that the analogy doesn’t hold perfectly if you include man as part of nature (and, of course, he IS!), but separating him out as an intelligent agent, as opposed to a random series of events, I think it still holds—and regardless of the “perfection” of the analogy, the point remains.
Byron ~ Aug 29, 2005 at 9:08 am