Linnaeus’ Questions:

the Issue in a Nutshell

By Inge-Bert Täljedal

Conference on ”Religion in Open Society”Lund University

Campus Helsingborg, June 1, 2009

POINTS TO COVER:

1. Quick rehash of the basic issue.

2. The meaning of ’design’.– Two subtly different meanings

3. ’ID’ and school curriculum.– My view– Judge Jone’s view– Steve Fuller’s view

4. Steve Fuller and Carolus Linnæus on science and religion.– Linnæus’ two questions to Sami herdsmen.

SUMMARY OF ’BIOLOGISTS’ vs. ’ID-ists’

MAINSTREAM BIOLOGY:

• Organisms have evolved by neo-Darwinian natural selection, i.e. chance mutations plus ’survival of the fittest’.

ID PROPONENTS:

• Organisms display properties which cannot arise by chance (’irreducible complexity’).

• Hence, neo-Darwinian natural selection is en erroneous theory.

• Intelligence is behind the appearance (creation) of organisms.

1. THE MEANING OF ’DESIGN’

Two subtly different meanings:

’Design’ is…

…a form (or product) intentionally shaped by a designer for a purpose. Logically dependent on the concepts of ’designer’ and ’purpose’. (1)

…a property of a whole serving a function, not reducible to the sum of the properties of parts but expressive of their interplay. Logically prior to the concept of ’designer’ (but dependent on the general concept of ’function’). (2) E.g. that interplay between a heart’s parts which makes the heart into a pump.

An example

THE FUNCTION OF THE HEART IS TO PUMP.

(PUMPING BLOOD IS WHAT THE HEART IS FOR)

To say that the heart has the design of a pump (shape, function, construction…) is to say something about the interplay of its parts now.

It is not a statement about the heart’s origin.

Neither is it to imply anything specific about the cause(s) (’designer’) behind the design.

The intelligibility of design does not logically imply that the cause(s) (’designer’) is or was ’intelligent’.

Do not confuse understanding of functional usefulness with explanation of origin!

The usefulness (’role’, ’function’, ’purpose’) of the heart in the body is understood without any reference to evolution whatsoever.

Evolution does not define the heart’s usefulness to the body, but explains its origin.

The existence of intelligent observers, who perceive an intelligible design, does not logically imply the existence of an intelligent designer.

Assuming an intelligent designer (God) behind the design of nature is to state an empirical hypothesis, not to draw a logical conclusion.

For the designer (God) hypothesis to be scientific (and not merely metaphysical), it must yield testable predictions – or falsify some existing empirical hypothesis. So far, neither is convincingly the case.

2. ’ID’ AND SCHOOL CURRICULUM

SHOULD ’ID’ BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS IN SCHOOL?

MY VIEW:

1. If the metaphysics of science is generally treated in the

science class: Why not ’ID’? Else: No (not yet, if ever)!

2. By claiming to disprove Darwinism by statistical calculus,

that part of ’ID’ could in principle qualify as ’scientific’ (as

opposed to merely metaphysical). But, so far only as weak

and marginal science and hence should not be taught in

school science classes.

SHOULD ’ID’ BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS IN SCHOOL?

JUDGE JONES:

No! ID is religion, not science – and so, for US constitutional

reasons, must not be taught in Biology class.

STEVE FULLER:

Why not? ’…religion needs to be discussed in science

classes. I can’t see how one can simply hold science and

religion in suspended animation apart from each other.’

Historically, many a great scientist, e.g. Linnæus, were

driven by religious motives.

3. FULLER AND LINNÆUS ON SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Caroli Linnæi

Iter LaponicumDei GratiaInstitutum

1732---

O ENS ENTIUM miserere mei.!!!

[O BEING OF BEINGS, have mercy on me.!!!]

----

”När renen går, så knäpper dett i foten. Jag undrade därpå, och sökte orsaken, då jag frågade, svarade alla, ty vår herre har så skapat honom, jag frågade huru vår herre honom skapat att dett knäpper. Sed ad hoc Forbesius nihil. Jag tog i fot leden, drog, brot, räckte uht, stötte samman…”

”When the reindeer walks a snapping sound arises from the hoof. I was curious and looked for the cause. When I asked about it, everybody answered: ’because Our Lord so created him’. I asked how Our Lord created him such that there is this snapping sound. But I got no reply. I grabbed the hoof by the joint, pulled, bent, compressed…”

Linnaeus: Why does the hoof snap?

Sami herdsman: Because God created the reindeer that way.

Linnaeus: How did the Lord create the hoof for it to snap?

Sami herdsman: [silence]

Linnaeus: [Starts to examine the hoof experimentally, looking for an immanent cause.] I got it! The snap arises because… etcetera

CONCLUSIONS

1. ’ID’ is not, or hardly, science.

2. ’ID’ should not be taught as science in school but may well be discussed in metaphysics hours.

3. Religious inspiration does not make transcendent causes legitimate in science. (They require a wider philosophical or theological context.)