When Something Is Beyond Criticism

It’s pretty hard to find a kindred spirit in the world of secular contemporary philosophy. For a discipline that for thousands of years has been so countermajoritarian in challenging assumptions, philosophy has become remarkably conformist. Of course, this conformity is most prevalent when discussing the topic of evolution.

It is instructive, I think, to view this conformity in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm model of scientific progress. He argues that science does not proceed linearly, but rather from paradigm to paradigm. The general structure is as follows: work is done within the paradigm; some revolutionary thinking questions anomalies within the paradigm; a new paradigm forms. We seem deeply entrenched in an evolutionary paradigm (of course, nothing in this model requires that any paradigm is necessarily wrong). Any attempt to question this paradigm is rejected almost without consideration.

In light of this, it is refreshing to read (atheist) philosopher Thomas Nagel. His recent book on this topic is Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Unsurprisingly, despite his preeminent reputation, he was promptly ostracized for questioning the dominant paradigm. Today, however, I will focus more on his piece “Public Education and Intelligent Design.” My claims are two: that it is dangerous anytime something (especially scientific or inductive truth) becomes beyond criticism, and that teaching only evolution in schools is not religiously neutral.

The incontrovertibility of evolution, of course, contributes to the teaching of only evolution in schools. The error in this thinking is the idea that evolution does not involve any nonscientific assumptions. As Nagel writes, “Both the inclusion of some mention of ID [intelligent design] in a biology class and its exclusion would seem to depend on religious assumptions.” There is an untenable asymmetry in this way of thinking; empirical evidence can be used to disprove any nonevolutionary explanation, but not to disprove an evolutionary one. Rendering a nonevolutionary theory impossible requires some nonscientific assumptions. Rejecting such a theory scientifically, however, requires acknowledging that it is in some way possible. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry. Being an inductive discipline based on empirical observation, science must be open to revisions. To consider evolution beyond criticism, then, defies the proper mode of scientific thinking.

To be clear, I am not advocating the teaching of “creation science.” I believe this “discipline” has no place in a science classroom. What must be acknowledged, however, is that evolution is not beyond criticism. Many people, both religious and not, have offered intellectually rigorous objections. As Nagel writes, “The only way to make no assumptions of a religious nature would be to admit that the empirical evidence may suggest different conclusions depending on what religious belief one starts with, and that the evidence does not by itself settle which of those beliefs is correct.” It is time to realize that every view presupposes certain nonscientific assumptions. No scientific theory can be beyond reproach.