ID and Kuhn

The other day I saw a commenter at Brad DeLong’s blog assert that Intelligent Design was a scientific revolution of the kind described by Thomas Kuhn. Once I stopped laughing, I began to wonder whether this was a common belief among ID proponents.
I guess it is, since Matt Yglesias devotes a long post to rebutting this notion. I usually enjoy Yglesias’ more philosophy-oriented posts, and this one is particularly good. Key paragraph:

Similarly, the brute fact that ID has a lot of problems doesn’t refute it. The problem with ID is that, unlike real revolutionary science, it doesn’t lead to any normal science. There are no ID-based research programs. Nothing has never been accomplished by applying the ID paradigm to a question in biology. All ID’s scholarly (and “scholarly”) proponents do is try to offer half-assed refutations of Darwin. You can quote Kuhn all you like, but you’re not doing revolutionary science unless your purported revolution leads to some normal science. Intelligent design does not.

One thought on “ID and Kuhn

  1. Mason

    Well, there’s also Wolfram self-favorably comparison to Newton (and his book to _The Principia_)… Of course, some of his stuff is real science (some of which is his and some of which is other people’s that he only claims as his), so the analog dies pretty quickly. How does ID do on the crackpot index? (Wolfram scores through the roof on that one.) For example, do the ID proponents have a lot of all-caps words in their abstracts? :)

Comments are closed.