Evolution court in session

[mr. yotsuya]

btw, last but not least, if are kind enough to post a paper here, please do not link any papers on mathematics (it seems they have a lot of papers on math). i really hate math and physics. =P

[Mordecai]

Originally Posted by mr. yotsuya

Mordecai, i read your link. there's not a complete paper there but one comment caught my eye. why would they call themselves "biblical creationists" if what they really consider is evidence. By biblical, do they mean the Christian Bible? i certainly don't agree with this and i think this goes against the initial argument for ID who wants "neutral and non-ideological" science education.

Actually a "neutral and non-ideological" science education as defined by the National Assessment Goverment Board (NAGB), under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, governing the Kansas hearings means it "will not advocate for a particular political party...or for a single perspective on a controversial issue." Only allowing for Darwinism in the classroom clearly violates that. And it doesn't mean that science education has to be free from ideologies, rather it means that all competing scientific theories, whether inspired by ideologies or not, must be allowed to be taught.


As for scientific papers, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for but here's a webpage listing peer-reviewed scientific papers from The Creation Research Society, you may take your pick there.

--> http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm

[micketymoc]

Of course this is all it boils down to – it’s a conspiracy against creationists! Come on, you can do better than that. I have a better explanation: There’s no evidence to support any claims of Special Creation or Intelligent Design. That’s why they’re talking about everything BUT evidence: blowing smoke in the audience’s faces by bringing up heavy-duty distractions like “methodological naturalism” .

Isn’t this issue about SCIENCE? About concepts which can be confirmed or denied by empirical evidence?

As soon as someone devises an experiment that empirically detects supernatural beings like God, science will be perfectly happy to use that experiment to confirm or deny the existence of Divine intervention, and, if it is so confirmed, acknowledge the reality of Divine intervention.

So where is it? You’d have expected ID scientists to have developed a protocol to do just that! You mean to tell me that the Indian Milk-Drinking Statues can get exposure in peer-reviewed journals and Creationists still can’t get a word in?

Sure, you can bring up other controversial scientists like Lynn Margulis to support your thesis of “scientific bigotry”, but what does that prove? Nothing, beyond the fact that their theories are being questioned for totally different criteria from those of creationists’. Gaia theory is controversial – but so what? If the evidence eventually supports Gaia, then consensus will swing towards it. It’s inevitable.

That’s what happened to plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. All of them were subjected to the most intense questioning and doubt – and eventually, the evidence put them on top of the heap.

Again, where’s the evidence? I think there’s none at all. I think that’s why you’re creating this conspiracy to cover up the sheer lack of support your creationist buddies get from the scientific community.

I think that’s why your guys in Kansas are doing everything they can to avoid any discussion of numbers – indeed, any discussion of evidence!

During the course of the hearings, the lawyer on the side of science, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked several of the witnesses for Intelligent Design creationism what they thought the age of the earth was. It's a simple, straightforward question with a simple answer: about 4.5 billion years. The Intelligent Design creationists found it difficult. Some answers were ludicrous, such as Daniel Ely's and John Sanford's assertion that the earth was between 10 and 100 thousand years old. Others were evasive: Stephen Meyer and Angus Menuge refused to answer. Some of these "qualified witnesses" were embarrassingly ignorant: William Harris could only say, "I don't know. I think it's probably really old.". All of this is in line with the intellectually flaccid position of the godfather of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip Johnson, who has bravely announced that "I have consistently said that I take no position on the age of the earth".

What about you, Mordecai? How old would you say the earth is? And do you have the evidence to prove your theory?

[micketymoc]

They are essentially the same, yes, but whether they come to the same conclusion is determined by one's approach to the available scientific data. Someone who is committed to the naturalistic philosophy will come to a different conclusion from someone who has a commitment to another philosophy or from someone who's just following the evidence wherever it leads.

Could you give me an example of “same evidence, different conclusions”?

Come to think of it, what do you think the evidence is telling us? What’s the age of the Earth? How long has humankind been on Earth? How old is the Universe? You talk a lot about scientific data, Mordecai, without actually discussing one iota of scientific fact! Why not lay your cards on the table and do what your creationist buddies have so far been unable to do:

Give us an outline of an alternative to evolution, and

Show us the evidence that supports that alternative!

[micketymoc]

All creationists are saying is that science and education must allow the evidence to speak for itself and to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I wholeheartedly agree. But where's the evidence for Creationism? Please give us an overview.

[micketymoc]

Speaking of lack of evidence:

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education:

"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

"Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics....

"Creation science, as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons defining scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of 'what scientists think' and 'what scientists do.' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups,nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication had been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought."

[gekokujo]

Originally Posted by Mordecai

Actually a "neutral and non-ideological" science education as defined by the National Assessment Goverment Board (NAGB), under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, governing the Kansas hearings means it "will not advocate for a particular political party...or for a single perspective on a controversial issue." Only allowing for Darwinism in the classroom clearly violates that. And it doesn't mean that science education has to be free from ideologies, rather it means that all competing scientific theories, whether inspired by ideologies or not, must be allowed to be taught.

REMARKS OF JOHN H. CALVERT, ESQ
to the
KANSAS SCIENCE WRITING COMMITTEE
October 28, 2004

Although your work is focused on science it also touches on religion because the standards seek to have the State define what students are to know about the origin and diversity of life. Origins science is a subject that unavoidably impacts religion.

Naturalism/materialism is the central tenet of non-theistic religions and belief systems like Secular Humanism, Scientism, Atheism and Agnosticism. The competing scientific claim is that law and chance alone are not adequate to explain either the origin of life or various aspects of its subsequent diversity. That claim disagrees that apparent design is just an illusion and argues that it may be real.

The idea that life is designed and made for a purpose is central to the claims of traditional theistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Accordingly, the claims of design and no-design critically impact religion. Parents who subscribe to traditional theistic beliefs who seek to have their children believe that they are designed and made for purpose will likely be offended by naturalistic theories of origins which contradict that idea. By same token, parents who are Secular Humanists or atheistic in their outlook will likely find naturalistic theories of origins sympathetic to their belief systems.

The religious impact of origins science clearly invokes First Amendment considerations which prohibit the state from enacting policies or practices respecting religion or which interfere with the rights of Parents and students to freely exercise their religion. A number of Supreme Court cases have addressed these religious rights. Generally, it would be fair to say that these holdings require that public education be “secular, neutral and non-ideological.” The statutes regulating the National Assessment of Educational Progress was amended in the No Child Left Behind Act to require the assessment to be “secular, neutral and non-ideological.” In addition the Act requires that services and materials provided by providers of certain supplemental services to children that have been left behind must be both “secular, neutral and non-ideological” and consistent with state education standards. Implicitly, the standards that you are writing must be “secular, neutral and non-ideological.”

“Secular, neutral and non-ideological” was recently defined by the National Assessment Governing Board to mean that items may not “advocate” or “oppose” “any particular religious views or beliefs,” and that items may not “advocate for” a “single perspective on a controversial issue.” “An item may ask students to explain both sides of a debate, or it may ask them to analyze an issue, or to explain the arguments of proponents or opponents, without requiring students to endorse personally the position they are describing.” A copy of the NAGB I would urge you to give due consideration to the proposals made by Dr. Harris. They seek not only good science by keeping evolution theoretical rather than dogmatic, but they also solve the Constitutional necessity of keeping origins science secular, neutral and non-ideological.

In my mind the proposed Introduction offered by the Co-Chairs does just the opposite. Regardless of their intention, standards that permit only natural explanations using only natural causes will have the effect of indoctrinating students in only a naturalistic perspective regarding the origin of life and its diversity. The effect of Methodological Naturalism is to suppress not only disagreement with the core claim of evolution, but any substantive criticism of that theory. This is scientifically controversial because it robs evolution of its theoretical status and converts it into a dogma or ideology. That takes evolution out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy and religion. It also guarantees that the ideological explanations provided will not be secular or neutral. In my opinion this offends good science and the requirements of the First Amendment.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

APPENDIX A

Definitions of Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological
Item Review Criteria
From Governing Board Policy on NAEP Item Development and Review—5/18/02

Items shall be secular, neutral, and non-ideological. Neither NAEP nor its questions shall advocate a particular religious belief or political stance. Where appropriate, NAEP questions may deal with religious and political issues in a fair and objective way. The following definitions shall apply to the review of all NAEP test questions, reading passages, and supplementary materials used in the assessment:

Secular — NAEP questions will not contain language that advocates or opposes any particular religious views or beliefs, nor will items compare one religion unfavorably to another. However, items may contain references to religions, religious symbolism, or members of religious groups where appropriate.

Examples: The following phrases would be acceptable: “shaped like a Christmas tree,” “religious tolerance is one of the key aspects of a free society,” “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist minister,” or “Hinduism is the predominant religion in India.”

Neutral and Non-ideological — Items will not advocate for a particular political party or partisan issue, for any specific legislative or electoral result, or for a single perspective on a controversial issue. An item may ask students to explain both sides of a debate, or it may ask them to analyze an issue, or to explain the arguments of proponents or opponents, without requiring students to endorse personally the position they are describing. Item writers should have the flexibility to develop questions that measure important knowledge and skills without requiring both pro and con responses to every item.

Examples: Students may be asked to compare and contrast positions on states rights, based on excerpts from speeches by X and Y;of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first and second inaugural addresses or to analyze the themes of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first and second inaugural addresses; to identify the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine; or to select a position on the issue of suburban growth and cite evidence to support this position. Or, students may be asked to provide arguments either for or against Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I. A NAEP question could ask students to summarize the dissenting opinion in a landmark Supreme Court case.

http://www.nagb.org/release/background_data.doc

3. Design of NAEP

Nature of NAEP Items: NAEP will not assess "personal or family beliefs and attitudes" and all questions are to be "secular, neutral, and non-ideological" and "free from racial, cultural, gender or regional bias."

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)
– Gives NAGB final authority over all assessment items, not just cognitive items. Requires NAGB to ensure that all items used in NAEP are secular, neutral, and non-ideological.

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/deputy/ncl...provisions.htm

[gekokujo]

National Science Education Standards

The National Science Education Standards were produced by the National Research Council in 1995 and published in 1996. The Standards were the result of four years of work by twenty-two scientific and science education societies and over 18,000 individual contributors. The National Science Teachers Association is now part of an ongoing effort to implement the Standards in classrooms throughout the country.

http://www.nsta.org/standards

...

NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS
CHAPTER 6 Science Content Standards: K12

Unifying Concepts and Processes

STANDARD: As a result of activities in grades K-12, all students should develop understanding and abilities aligned with the following concepts and processes:

* Systems, order, and organization
* Evidence, models, and explanation
* Constancy, change, and measurement
* Evolution and equilibrium
* Form and function

GUIDE TO THE CONTENT STANDARD

Some of the fundamental concepts that underlie this standard are

EVOLUTION AND EQUILIBRIUM Evolution is a series of changes, some gradual and some sporadic, that accounts for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems. The general idea of evolution is that the present arises from materials and forms of the past. Although evolution is most commonly associated with the biological theory explaining the process of descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors, evolution also describes changes in the universe.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/6b.html

Science Content Standards: 9-12
Science as Inquiry

Life Science

CONTENT STANDARD C: As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop understanding of

* The cell
* Molecular basis of heredity
* Biological evolution
* Interdependence of organisms
* Matter, energy, and organization in living systems
* Behavior of organisms

DEVELOPING STUDENT UNDERSTANDING

Students in grades K-8 should have developed a foundational understanding of life sciences. In grades 9-12, students' understanding of biology will expand by incorporating more abstract knowledge, such as the structure and function of DNA, and more comprehensive theories, such as evolution. Students' understandings should encompass scales that are both smaller, for example, molecules, and larger, for example, the biosphere.

Students have difficulty with the fundamental concepts of evolution. For example, students often do not understand natural selection because they fail to make a conceptual connection between the occurrence of new variations in a population and the potential effect of those variations on the long-term survival of the species. One misconception that teachers may encounter involves students attributing new variations to an organism's need, environmental conditions, or use. With some help, students can understand that, in general, mutations occur randomly and are selected because they help some organisms survive and produce more offspring. Other misconceptions center on a lack of understanding of how a population changes as a result of differential reproduction (some individuals producing more offspring), as opposed to all individuals in a population changing. Many misconceptions about the process of natural selection can be changed through instruction.

Many misconceptions about the process of natural selection can be changed through instruction.

GUIDE TO THE CONTENT STANDARD

Fundamental concepts and principles that underlie this standard include

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

* Species evolve over time. Evolution is the consequence of the interactions of (1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers, (2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, (3) a finite supply of the resources required for life, and (4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring.
* The great diversity of organisms is the result of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution that has filled every available niche with life forms.
* Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms.
* The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors.
* Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books...6e.html#csc912

...

[gekokujo]

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

SEC. 412. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD.

(e) DUTIES-

(4) PROHIBITION AGAINST BIAS- The Board shall take steps to ensure that all items selected for use in the National Assessment are free from racial, cultural, gender, or regional bias and are secular, neutral, and non-ideological.

...

[mr. yotsuya]

Mordecai, tnx for the link.

I was not yet able to read all the articles but based on what I read, 2 caught my attention.

1. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.../36_1/atp.html

I have no problems with most of his article. They were based on conventional biology that we all know. The only qualm i had was that he did not answer his own questions too.

Among the questions evolutionists must answer include the following, “How did life exist before ATP?” “How could life survive without ATP since no form of life we know of today can do that?” and “How could ATP evolve and where are the many transitional forms required to evolve the complex ATP molecule?” No feasible candidates exist and none can exist because only a perfect ATP molecule can properly carry out its role in the cell.

It would have been more credible if he could propose answers to these difficult questions himself. As it is, his theory is no better than the evolutionist's theory. His paper was more on an attack on Darwinian theory, which is not bad IMO as theories should always be challenged anyway.

More importantly, I find it uncomfortable that a scientist should use subjective terms like "perfect". Who knows, some new data may come in the future to indicate he was wrong.

2. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...9_1/GeoMag.htm

This one, I find really interesting. 99.9 % of the article is based on accepted scientific data (I just watched the very same evidences he's speaking about on the Discovery Channel). The remaining 0.1% are "the Genesis Flood", "God", "Genesis Flood" and "Biblical". Personally, I do not see the importance of these terms if his purpose is to give a new estimate on the age of the earth (6000 yrs). I can see his paper standing perfectly well on its own without these words. So what's the purpose of these terms in his article?
I see the paper as more to strengthen the credibility of the bible rather than to challenge the age of the earth.

I asked you for concrete examples because i want to see for myself how creationists think. Personally, I still do not see anything wrong with the current/conventional educational system. It does not seem to limit new philosophies and creative thinking as much as creationists would like it to appear. After all, there are quite a substantial number of creationist scientists around as they claim.

However, I am not in favor of including them in the curriculum for the following reasons :

1. Science i believe should be objective, free from any kind of bias. As you said, wherever evidence leads. As it is, the influence of the Christian Bible is undeniable in some of the creationist views. How do they expect to control this during the classes?

2. As it is, not all students are Christians. It would be disadvantageous for them to teach them Christian philosophy thru creationism. What about Hindus who have many gods? The current educational system for science (at least here in the Philippines) is enough, neither forcing people to believe nor does it prevent diverging opinions or theories as evidenced by the debate on this issue.

3. Attacking the "dogma" that is the Darwinian theory is no problem. Only time will really tell if it or the creationists are correct. As it is, Darwin's theory with its many loopholes as people say, have stood the test of time due to its applicability (that's why i said practical before). Its power and weakness is that it is rooted on instinct. Whether creationist theory will be able to provide a powerful enough idea of its own (without the help of education/indoctrination) to topple Darwin remains to be seen. Remember, many of the fundamental scientific principles we use today were not generally accepted at the time they were proposed including Darwin's. Many we're in fact scorned.

There are many theories still attacking it till now (not just ID as I see now) but the burden of proof actually lies in their hands. We must also remember, Darwinian theory was also never taught in schools at the time it was proposed. There were many competing theories at the time and Darwin's theory of evolution emerged more widely accepted. I believe the same applies to creationist theory.

Survival of the Fittest.

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by Mordecai

You won't read works of ID scientists in popular science journals because of SCIENTIFIC BIGOTRY. Evolutionists are the judge and jury of leading science journals and have a solid history of hostility towards creationists. Heck, even evolutionists themselves admit it, like Dr. Margulis who is a doctrinaire evolutionist herself, strenuously opposed to creationism, and who has impeccable credentials (a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley) and is Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Unfortunately for her, her scientific evolutionary theory of Gaia (i.e., "Mother Earth") is suppressed by her own peers as she admits:

And here's from Dr. Hannes Alfvèn, one of the world's most distinguished evolutionary astrophysicists, who referred to his own theory of the origin of the universe which differs from the orthodox "Big Bang" theory complains that the "Big Bang" evolutionary cosmologists conspire to prevent studies and publications on his own evolutionary cosmology:

But despite the bigotry certainly many creationist scientists has been able to publish in notable scientific journals. You may go to the following link to get a listing:

--> Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

Once again I quote from Dr. Angus Menuge who, in his testimony to the Kansas hearings, answer your objections above:

Hence, abductively speaking, ID claims to be the best explanation of origins based on available scientific data. If only the bigoted evolutionists would get out of the way.

As much as I can't help but supress some laughter I'm afraid I have to give Mordecai more ammunition for his argument:

Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (clickme)

Some objections have been raised against Kuhn however but i'll get to that once I sort out my handouts and photocopies...

[gekokujo]

Oneiros: i think i've dissed-i mean discussed Kuhn before, but suffice to say, i concede that Kuhn is persuasive. so much so that

Chapter IX - The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions.

Why should a paradigm change be called a revolution? What are the functions of scientific revolutions in the development of science?

D. Consequently, the assimilation of either a new sort of phenomenon or a new scientific theory must demand the rejection of an older paradigm.

5. Kuhn observes that his view is not the prevalent view. The prevalent view maintains that a new paradigm derives from, or is a cumulative addition to, the supplanted paradigm. [Note: This was the case in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the book was published, but it is not the case today. As Kuhn points out, logical positivists were carrying the day then, but Structure proved revolutionary itself, and Kuhn's view is reasonably influential these days. Many would argue that Kuhn's view is now the prevalent view.]

so Kuhn himself has 'become' a paradigm, in a span of time which likely surprised Kuhn himself with its rapidity. which shows that, while the formulation, acceptance, and more tellingly defence of theories may not exactly be a process as free of bias as the more 'idealistic' would prefer, there is ample opportunity for a well-articulated, comprehensively-argued theory like Kuhn's to intervene and overthrow the prevailing worldview.

one more thing

Chapter X - Revolutions as Changes of World View.

When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. How do the beliefs and conceptions of scientists change as the result of a paradigm shift? Are theories simply man-made interpretations of given data?

C. Why does a shift in view occur?

6. Because the existing paradigm fails to fit. Always.

D. It is hard to make nature fit a paradigm.

there you have it: let it not be overlooked that Creationism was the old paradigm, and history before Darwin is replete with examples of scientific gymnastics 'fitting' this and that old bone to the Flood, the Biblical giants, the Biblically-computed age of the Earth of approx. 6,000 years courtesy of the eminent 'scientist' Bishop Lightfoot of the Church of England, etc. etc. - the utter inadequacy of the Creationist paradigm in the face of compelling evidence fatal to its claims is what ultimately did it in, and this mechanism Kuhn acknowledges. there will always be parasites like the ID crowd who will attempt to manipulate Kuhn's rhetoric to serve their own ends, as they do with everything else including the Law - but, thanks to Kuhn, it's easy to spot one before it can land and bite you.

besides, Kuhn himself incorporated Darwinian Evolution into his thought

Chapter XIII - Progress Through Revolutions.

In the face of the arguments previously made, why does science progress, how does it progress, and what is the nature of its progress?

J. We may have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth.

1. The developmental process described by Kuhn is a process of evolution from primitive beginnings—a process whose successive stages are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature.

2. This is not a process of evolution toward anything.

3. Important questions arise.

a. Must there be a goal set by nature in advance?
b. Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature?
c. Is the proper measure of scientific achievement the extent to which it brings us closer to an ultimate goal?

4. The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas "is nearly perfect".

a. The resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science.
b. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by period of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge.
c. Successive stages in that developmental process are marked by an increase in articulation and specialization.
d. The process occurs without benefit of a set goal and without benefit of any permanent fixed scientific truth.

5. What must the world be like in order that man may know it?

this portion for me is the most 'revolutionary' insight of Kuhn: that science is open-ended, that what people perceive as 'progress' towards some goal may simply be science feeling evolutionary pressures itself.

were humans entitled from the start to be the dominant species? we can only infer that early humans' brains and upright posture give them an advantage, but that does not necessarily point to global domination; in the same vein, are humans destined to eventually uncover all the secrets of Nature and so gain mastery over it? again, progress has been made in that direction, but the sheer difficulty of that progress by no means implies that it is a birthright: according to Kuhn, the same pressures which led to the development of species also apply to the development of scientific ideas, as in biological evolution, we do not know what's at the end of the tunnel - or if there is even an end to the tunnel.

which is as resounding an endorsement as one could hope for: a borrowed conceptual framework that finds "near perfect" relevance in another setting. if you disagree with any of my observations, feel free to point-out my lapses. whatever the case, do post more of Kuhn.

[gekokujo]

Excerpts from Pedro Irigonegaray’s Closing Arguments

Many people of faith, including many Christians, accept science

1. Many people of faith, including many Christians, accept science as the limited enterprise of seeking natural explanations.

2. This does not conflict with their theistic beliefs because they believe that God acts in the physical world through natural causes.

3. They understand that science does not claim to answer all questions about the world, not does it claim to offer a complete human explanation about any part of the world. Such people are often called “theistic evolutionists” in respect to evolution.

A few samples slides:

God is a God of process

God acts through process in nature as well as in human history

Divine creation does not imply any necessary breaks in the continuity of cause-and-effect processes

Evolution is simply a scientific description of God’s creative activity

The Nature of Science

Science is a search for chains of natural cause-and-effect processes

Science is NOT a statement about the nature of ultimate reality. It is NOT based on a metaphysical naturalism[/b]

Recently a group of clergy in Wisconsin wrote a letter to school officials about this issue. At this point, over 3500 clergy have signed their letter endorsing their position. (Exhibit: Wisconsin Clergy statement)

Concluding paragraph:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe
that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Wisconsin Clergy letter

1. The Minority report and the Minority witnesses make it clear that the core argument of the Minority is a theological argument that science, by seeking natural explanations, is atheist and materialistic - an expression of the philosophy of naturalism.

2. The Minority’s strategy is to claim that science is atheistic in order to then claim that their theistic beliefs – design, must be inserted into science. They want to change the definition of science to add supernatural causes.

3. Here are some quotes from the Minority report. Quotes, and a response.

4. Also, the Minority propose the following in the grades 8-12 Benchmark on Evolution:

“Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal. It also assumes that life arose from an unguided natural process.”

Notice that it is the Minority that wishes to insert this theological description of evolution. Draft 2 correctly understands that the question of divine guidance is beyond the scope of science.

...

The Minority report claims science is atheistic

The Minority report, Minority witnesses and the Intelligent Design movement leadership denounce and reject theistic evolutionism

The Minority report, in claiming that science is atheistic, lumps the theistic evolutionists mentioned early in with the “non-theistic religions and belief systems like Secular Humanism, atheism, agnosticism and scientism.”

The Intelligent design movement strongly rejects theistic evolution as a legitimate Christian perspective.

Here are some quotes.

Remarks on theistic evolution from leaders of the Intelligent
Design movement

Phillip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement, once said,

“liberal Christians [theistic evolutionists] are worse than atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion.” (University of Kansas, April, 2000)

William Dembski, the main theorist of Intelligent Design writes,

“Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism. What theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, accepting as it does only purposeless, naturalistic, material processes for the origin and development of life.” (”What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design,” William A. Dembski, Ph.D., 1995)

Also, last Saturday, when Minority witness Angus Menuge, a philosophy professor at Concordia University in Wisconsin, was asked about scientists who have theistic beliefs and also accept evolution, he said,

"The mere fact that you have somebody who holds two beliefs, A and B, does not show that they are logically consistent," he said. "It might be that some of these people are confused.”

As reported in numerous newspapers, this amused many in the audience, some of whom wore name tags saying “Confused” for the rest of the day.

...

Conclusion about the nature of science and Intelligent Design theology

The Minority is wrong that science, by seeking natural causes, is atheistic and materialistic.

The Minority denounces the position of Christians and others who believe that science and their faith do not conflict.

The Minority wants to insert their interpretation that science is atheistic into the standards in order to knock down this “strawman definition” (gekokujo's note: ) that they themselves have created.

The Minority is using science and the state science standards as a vehicle to advance their narrow sectarian theology over other theologies including mainstream Christianity.

This is not about science. It is about the Minority’s fight with naturalism, secular humanism, and atheism. They are misrepresenting science and abusing the state’s public education system to wage a needless cultural and theological battle.

[Mordecai]

Originally Posted by micketymoc

Of course this is all it boils down to – it’s a conspiracy against creationists! Come on, you can do better than that. I have a better explanation: There’s no evidence to support any claims of Special Creation or Intelligent Design. That’s why they’re talking about everything BUT evidence: blowing smoke in the audience’s faces by bringing up heavy-duty distractions like “methodological naturalism” .

^ Talk about bigotry . I don't think any claims of conspiracy have been made here, but I guess it helps to bolster your case if you can paint creationists as fanatical conspiracy theorists. But for everyone else who is fair-minded, creationists are simply saying what their experience has been for many years--scientific and academic bigotry. And evolutionists themselves who have been at the receiving end of it admits it as previously demonstrated. Need more evidence? Here's more...

--> Religious/Scientific Bigotry in the Public Schools and Scientific careers

Isn’t this issue about SCIENCE? About concepts which can be confirmed or denied by empirical evidence?

Umm…yes and no. Yes, it’s about science, but it’s also about education remember? And no, scientific explanations for ORIGINS of life and diversity cannot be confirmed or denied by empirical evidence. Which is why evolution is no better than the ID theory and therefore does not deserve any dogma status in the classroom.

As soon as someone devises an experiment that empirically detects supernatural beings like God, science will be perfectly happy to use that experiment to confirm or deny the existence of Divine intervention, and, if it is so confirmed, acknowledge the reality of Divine intervention.

So where is it? You’d have expected ID scientists to have developed a protocol to do just that! You mean to tell me that the Indian Milk-Drinking Statues can get exposure in peer-reviewed journals and Creationists still can’t get a word in?

It seems to me that neither can evolution stand against the very same standard you’re espousing. Where is the empirical evidence that life can arise from non-life or from pure chance? Where is the observable, repeatable evidence for macroevolution?

Sure, you can bring up other controversial scientists like Lynn Margulis to support your thesis of “scientific bigotry”, but what does that prove? Nothing, beyond the fact that their theories are being questioned for totally different criteria from those of creationists’. Gaia theory is controversial – but so what? If the evidence eventually supports Gaia, then consensus will swing towards it. It’s inevitable.

That’s what happened to plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. All of them were subjected to the most intense questioning and doubt – and eventually, the evidence put them on top of the heap

Oh I’m pretty sure that eventually that will be the case for Creationism, as evolutionism’s weaknesses and philosophical/religious underpinnings gets exposed both in the scientific community and in the classroom.

Again, where’s the evidence? I think there’s none at all. I think that’s why you’re creating this conspiracy to cover up the sheer lack of support your creationist buddies get from the scientific community.

I think that’s why your guys in Kansas are doing everything they can to avoid any discussion of numbers – indeed, any discussion of evidence!

What about you, Mordecai? How old would you say the earth is? And do you have the evidence to prove your theory?

You know if you’re gonna challenge us creationists and talk about numbers and the age of the Earth, why aren’t you upfront enough to give us YOUR theory? Can YOU give us an EXACT age for the Earth? Moreover, can you show us that whatever age you give ALL evolutionists subscribe to it? If you can’t, then your GUESS, no matter how “scientific”, is just as good as mine. And that’s the point isn’t it? Nobody can empirically measure issues of ORIGINS. The best that scientists can do is offer THEORIES. But theories, can be wrong, which is why elevating a particular theory to a status of dogma in the classroom is simply censorship, indoctrination, and bigotry.

Originally Posted by micketymoc

Could you give me an example of “same evidence, different conclusions”?

Come to think of it, what do you think the evidence is telling us? What’s the age of the Earth? How long has humankind been on Earth? How old is the Universe? You talk a lot about scientific data, Mordecai, without actually discussing one iota of scientific fact! Why not lay your cards on the table and do what your creationist buddies have so far been unable to do:

Give us an outline of an alternative to evolution, and

Show us the evidence that supports that alternative!

Originally Posted by micketymoc

I wholeheartedly agree. But where's the evidence for Creationism? Please give us an overview.

I haven’t seen you lift a finger to the very thing you’ve asked for, so why should I? Besides, this is neither the time nor the place for such an in-depth discussion that it will likely lead to. The main issue here is science education and how theories should not be elevated to a status of dogma in the classroom, as if it’s a natural law.

[Mordecai]

Originally Posted by mr. yotsuya

Mordecai, tnx for the link.

Good take on those papers Yotsuya.

I asked you for concrete examples because i want to see for myself how creationists think. Personally, I still do not see anything wrong with the current/conventional educational system. It does not seem to limit new philosophies and creative thinking as much as creationists would like it to appear. After all, there are quite a substantial number of creationist scientists around as they claim.

So you still don't see a problem with having been indoctrinated with the theory of evolution by suppressing its faults and the existence of other competing theories out there?

However, I am not in favor of including them in the curriculum for the following reasons :

1. Science i believe should be objective, free from any kind of bias. As you said, wherever evidence leads. As it is, the influence of the Christian Bible is undeniable in some of the creationist views. How do they expect to control this during the classes?

While I agree with your sentiment that science should be objective and free of bias, yet it is quite impossible to do so especially when you go into the area of origins (universe, life, etc.). You will always run into either the naturalistic philosophy of secular humanism or the creationist view of theistic religions. And so the only way to be objective and free of bias in education is to present both sides and let the students decide.

2. As it is, not all students are Christians. It would be disadvantageous for them to teach them Christian philosophy thru creationism. What about Hindus who have many gods? The current educational system for science (at least here in the Philippines) is enough, neither forcing people to believe nor does it prevent diverging opinions or theories as evidenced by the debate on this issue.

I think that's why it's been called the "Intelligent Design" theory, as opposed to "biblical creation" theory. Although ID scientists are predominantly Christians, ID itself only suggests a theistic cause for the origin of all things.

3. Attacking the "dogma" that is the Darwinian theory is no problem. Only time will really tell if it or the creationists are correct. As it is, Darwin's theory with its many loopholes as people say, have stood the test of time due to its applicability (that's why i said practical before). Its power and weakness is that it is rooted on instinct. Whether creationist theory will be able to provide a powerful enough idea of its own (without the help of education/indoctrination) to topple Darwin remains to be seen. Remember, many of the fundamental scientific principles we use today were not generally accepted at the time they were proposed including Darwin's. Many we're in fact scorned.

I think evolution has stood the test of time precisely because of censorship and bigotry. If ID is allowed an equal footing in the classroom and in the scientific community, then that's when we can finally say only time will tell whether the creationists are correct. Unfortunately, science is not the only thing involved here, there's a whole lot of politics in the background as well to spice things up.

There are many theories still attacking it till now (not just ID as I see now) but the burden of proof actually lies in their hands. We must also remember, Darwinian theory was also never taught in schools at the time it was proposed. There were many competing theories at the time and Darwin's theory of evolution emerged more widely accepted. I believe the same applies to creationist theory.

But nor was Darwin's theory suppressed like ID's experience today. I sometimes think it will take an "act" from that "designer" for ID to just get an equal footing in the classroom and in science.

Survival of the Fittest.

Which, btw, is a phrase that's circular in its reasoning or tautologous.

[Mordecai]

Originally Posted by gekokujo

Conclusion about the nature of science and Intelligent Design theology

The Minority is wrong that science, by seeking natural causes, is atheistic and materialistic.

The Minority denounces the position of Christians and others who believe that science and their faith do not conflict.

The Minority wants to insert their interpretation that science is atheistic into the standards in order to knock down this “strawman definition” (gekokujo's note: ) that they themselves have created.

The Minority is using science and the state science standards as a vehicle to advance their narrow sectarian theology over other theologies including mainstream Christianity.

This is not about science. It is about the Minority’s fight with naturalism, secular humanism, and atheism. They are misrepresenting science and abusing the state’s public education system to wage a needless cultural and theological battle.

On the contrary, virtually all other states in the U.S. are in full agreement with the proposed definition of science in the Minority Report. Kansas is the only state that wants to define and limit science to a purely naturalistic explanations. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, who did a complete survey of definitions of state science standards, commented:

Kansas Science Standards Reviewers Dennison and Miller claim that the Minority Report proposes a radical re-definition of science. Yet a comprehensive survey of state science standards (attached below) shows that all other states in the union that define science in their standards define it in a way similar to the Minority.

Dennison and Miller, along with reviewers Heppert and Theobald, also claim that the revised definition would open the door to supernatural explanations in science. This is simply false: No one is proposing that supernatural explanations should be included in science.

The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result. This shift is out of step with modern science education, which gives priority to the activity of formulating and testing hypotheses. The Minority's definition is consistent with science as an open-ended inquiry that follows the evidence wherever it leads. The Majority's definition, by contrast, shortcircuits this process of inquiry and encourages premature answers to scientific questions -- the sort of "just-so stories" criticized by scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould.

The only other state in the U.S. that explicitly limits science to naturalistic explanations is Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts science standards, however, this limitation comes at the end of a detailed description of the scientific enterprise that begins by defining science more generally as "attempts to give good accounts of the patterns in nature." Only Kansas currently defines science primarily as "seeking natural explanations." As the comprehensive survey attached shows, the Minority's proposed revision would bring the Kansas science standards back into the mainstream of the U.S. science education community.

[Ischaramoochie]

occam's razor

[gekokujo]

yup. mr. y got that at post #15. too bad the reply was a non-sequitur.

[mr. yotsuya]

^ ...i guess that's one way to describe my idea on science.

also, may i add that i now find it ironic that this is still basically the same debate that happened when Darwin first came out with his theory albeit, the sides have been switched. I think toppling the reigning ID at the time was the reason Darwin came up with the theory in the first place.

the problem with this debate is that it currently seems there are only two generally accepted theoretical alternatives : ID or evolution. One should prove to be correct and the other must be rejected because the two are definitely irreconcilable.

The thing is evolution has been applied successfully to explain many observed "minute" natural phenomena convincingly. The disappearance of mitochondria in some organisms, the prehensile tailbone that we have and even the canine teeth that we have are just a few small examples. That's the power of Darwin's book. And it continues to find its uses even with the theory's failure to explain other issues (such as the origin of life or the parallel appearance of humanoid specimens from different locations).

On the one hand, creationism has not been applied that usefully. But i believe it has been given its chance (as history says it was the accepted dogma before).

However, the discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe and Darwin's theory hastened its downfall. And Darwin's theory was supported not by the majority but only a minority of open minded people back then.

In terms of equal educational opportunities for both theories, until the Intelligent Design theory is able to convincingly explain even the most minute of details about biology, i believe, they would not be given the same amount of importance that is currently accorded evolution theory. The most important thing for a theory is applicability and in this regard, biology has successfully used the theory of evolution for the last 150 years. For creationism to be given equal footing in education, i believe it should first address the loopholes found in evolutionary theory satisfactorily. If it cannot, it will always be regarded as a lesser theory inferior to the one we currently use now.

As of now, it seems to me that Creationist theory creates as much questions as it should answer. Intelligent Design for me (no offense Mordecai =P) seems to be the default conclusion of creationists for observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the given data. Everything is just too "perfect" is what i gather from reading their papers.

And no, i do not believe my comments are based on my "education/indoctrination" to evolutionary theory. I believe i am open minded enough to consider another point of view about paradigm shifts in science like Wagner's plate tectonic theory but i do have reservations on the way creationists think that i believe would adversely affect the scientific thinking of students.

To name one example, consider the paper i linked in my post before about Magnetic Field Shifts. If you read the paper up to the conclusion, you'll realize that the author did not follow his evidence till the end. His conclusion was that the age of the earth is about 6000 years old (based on the age of the magnetic field) coincides with the biblical age of the earth. It seems to me that he stopped his studies once he reached 6000 years realizing in his eagerness that this was the proof he needed for his creationist theory. However, any ordinary student can simply ask the following questions to cast doubt on his claims :

1. Does that mean that carbon dating technology is incorrect?
2. Did he consider the probability that the magnetic field did not exist for a few billion years similar to the other planets?

If i were him, i could have given a more credible conclusion for him if he wanted to reconcile the bible with science - that literally life (maybe Adam?) started 6000 years ago because it would be impossible for life to exist without the magnetic field but there is the possibility that the earth could be older.

As it is, i do not believe they are following evidences till the end but more on twisting it to suit their purpose. I guess this is an example of same data, different conclusions we discussed before.

I am not an expert on any of the two theories and I do not recommend generalizing based on a few examples but it does start to cast doubts on the methodology and thought process of these scientists.

I believe only one should be taught in schools as they are too contradictory to be taught together. Maybe creationists should concentrate more on finding a "smoking gun" for their theory instead of demanding equal footing with the current "dogma". That's just my point all along really. They should do as Darwin did. Demolish the opposition and publish an "Origin" of their own even against censorship.

I agree with geko. There should be no "free rides" in this world. =P

[gekokujo]

speaking of "same data, different conclusions"

Originally Posted by gekokujo

Conclusion about the nature of science and Intelligent Design theology

The Minority is wrong that science, by seeking natural causes, is atheistic and materialistic.

The Minority denounces the position of Christians and others who believe that science and their faith do not conflict.

The Minority wants to insert their interpretation that science is atheistic into the standards in order to knock down this “strawman definition” (gekokujo's note: ) that they themselves have created.

The Minority is using science and the state science standards as a vehicle to advance their narrow sectarian theology over other theologies including mainstream Christianity.

This is not about science. It is about the Minority’s fight with naturalism, secular humanism, and atheism. They are misrepresenting science and abusing the state’s public education system to wage a needless cultural and theological battle.

as anyone can see, the Minority or the ID/creationist position is: science is atheistic. please see the omitted portion of my post to see how wrong that position is.

otoh, does the following address the above Conclusion on the ID/creationist position?

Originally Posted by Mordecai

On the contrary, virtually all other states in the U.S. are in full agreement with the proposed definition of science in the Minority Report. Kansas is the only state that wants to define and limit science to a purely naturalistic explanations. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, who did a complete survey of definitions of state science standards, commented:

err...no. it simply states that other states are "in full agreement" with the ID/creationist definition of science, but neither the statement above nor the link provided offers any clarification as to whether those other state standards agree with the key ID/creationist claim that "science is atheistic"; in addition, the above reply ignores Irigonegaray's objections to the ID/creationist characterizations of the Majority report def. of science as a "strawman definition" yet proceeds to label that definition "purely naturalistic" nevertheless.

and so enough with indulging non-sequiturs

Kansas Science Standards Writing Committee: Draft 2 (Majority Report)

Nature of Science

Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.

Hypothesis, law, and theory are frequently misunderstood terms used in science. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to design experiments and to build more complex inferences and explanations. A law is a descriptive generalization based on repeated observations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that incorporates observations, inferences, laws, well-tested hypotheses and experimental findings to explain a specific aspect of the natural world. Theories drive research because they draw attention to areas where data or understandings are incomplete, suggesting additional directions for research.

The effect of these criteria is to ensure that scientific explanations about the world can be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as additional evidence becomes available and/or as new technologies extends our abilities to explore. This open-endedness of science is its greatest strength, and allows for constant refining and improvement of explanations. Although all scientific knowledge is in principle tentative, science has a high degree of confidence in explanations that have been repeatedly tested and shown to be valid. The willingness of scientists to change explanations based on evidence, actually results in more reliable information. Changes in scientific knowledge can occur gradually or rapidly. The early 21st century is a time of quite rapid scientific advancement, characterized by a high rate of both discovery and accumulation of knowledge. Rather then developing “new” theories, the current explosion of knowledge has greatly expanded the basic and well-accepted principles from physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and biological sciences. Scientists recognize that there are still new frontiers of science.

Kansas Science Standards Writing Committee: Draft 2 (Minority Report) (PDF file!)

b. Introduction – Nature of Science

As an alternative to the Nature of Science section in Draft 2, this proposal recommends the retention of the existing material under the Nature of Science in the current standards except for a revision to the definition of science and the addition of two new paragraphs at the end of the section.

Nature of Science

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. <Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.> Science does so <through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument> while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanations must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments.

The effect of these criteria is to ensure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or understanding tre incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions.

Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in our understanding of the world about us.

According to many scientists a core claim of evolutionary theory is that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. Other scientists disagree. These standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement. However, to promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:

"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Explanation:

This change is explicitly consistent with the NCLB advice, as it actually incorporates it.

The principle change here is to replace a naturalistic definition of science with a traditional definition. The current definition of science is intended to reflect concept called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid. Although called a “method of science,” the effect of its use is to limit inquiry (and permissible explanations) and thus to promote the philosophy of Naturalism.

In effect, this “method” is actually a doctrine because its key tenets or "assumptions” are not refutable and are not generally disclosed. Whether or not intended, the effect of this construct is to cause students to accept as true its unstated premise. This can be reasonably expected to lead one to believe in the naturalistic philosophy that life and its diversity is the result of an unguided, purposeless natural process. This is both scientifically and Constitutionally problematic.

Methodological naturalism is scientifically problematic in origins science because it violates two key aspects of the scientific method. It philosophically limits both the formation and testing of competing hypotheses. It limits hypothesis formation by philosophically ruling out a logical, evidence-based competitor to the evolutionary hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least partially guided. Criticisms of the naturalistic hypothesis are also disallowed to ensure that the outlawed competitor does not intrude through the back door. Without any substantive competitor, evolution cannot be effectively tested or falsified, and is thereby converted into a dogma, doctrine or ideology. As such, naturalistic evolution actually ceases to fall within the realm of science. In a recent paper the kind of materialistic reductionism required by methodological naturalism has been charged with actually being detrimental to the conduct of science. It is even questionable whether methodological naturalism is actually used by scientists who seek to understand the function of biological systems. In many cases these systems are treated as if they were actually designed; assembled to perform a function. This was recently discussed by a Michael Ruse, a prominent philosopher of science:

“Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that this kind of design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms – the parts at least -- as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking – teleological thinking – is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.”

Ruse’s comment is reflected in a recent anthology that contains a long list of questions unanswered by standard evolutionary theory. In describing these problems, the authors repeatedly refer to them as problems of “design.”

"The nature of the determinants and rules for the organization of design elements constitutes one of the major unsolved problems in the scientific account of organismal form.”

Thus, rather than using methodological naturalism in the actual work of science, it seems that scientists are actually using “methodological design.”

Methodological naturalism has also served as a science stopper in our understanding of biochemical systems. For example, for many years scientists predicted that the non-coding portions of the genome were merely evolutionary “junk” that accumulated over eons of time and were not worthy of scientific study. Scientists are now finding these portions to be functional, and some have expressed frustration that the “junk” assumption has actually held back scientific progress.

The irrefutable nature of Methodological Naturalism renders it inconsistent with the key tenet of science that all explanations are subject to refutation. This need for criticism is expressed as follows on page 4 of the current Introduction:

“The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants.” [Nature of Science, page 4]

Although the current standards use methodological naturalism, they do not inform students of its use, purpose or effect. That need is explained in science for All Americans, On-Line, Chapter 1:

THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE. “When faced with a claim that something is true, scientists respond by asking what evidence supports it. But scientific evidence can be biased in how the data are interpreted, in the recording or reporting of the data, or even in the choice of what data to consider in the first place.

“Bias attributable to the investigator, the sample, the method, or the instrument may not be completely avoidable in every instance, but scientists want to know the possible sources of bias and how bias is likely to influence evidence. Scientists want, and are expected, to be as alert to possible bias in their own work as in that of other scientists, although such objectivity is not always achieved.” (emphasis added)

In addition to being scientifically problematic, the use of an irrefutable assumption in origins science may be Constitutionally problematic. During the meeting on October 28, 2004, John Calvert, a lawyer who has studied the Constitutional issue for the last five years, explained why the current definition of science (the one proposed by our Opponents) is not consistent with the requirement that educational materials be secular, neutral and non-ideological. Methodological naturalism effectively converts evolution into an irrefutable ideology that is not secular or neutral. Naturalism is the fundamental tenet of non-theistic religions and belief systems like Secular Humanism, atheism, agnosticism and scientism.

Proponents believe the most effective way to solve both the scientific and constitutional problem is to use a traditional definition of science that will encourage thinking “outside of the box” and open up the discussion to multiple scientific viewpoints. This idea is reflected in the sentiment of the Congress when it adopted the No-Child Left Behind Act. We believe that perspective should be included in the Introduction so that school districts and teachers will understand that they are empowered to address origins science objectively.

As a final note, the NCLB advice urges that students be exposed to the “full range of scientific views that exist.” We believe that this is something the standards should not require because there are numerous views and simply not time enough to cover them all. Rather schools and teachers should be encouraged to move in this direction. For example, the scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolution that living systems lack the attribute of design is one that needs further scientific and curricular development before teaching about it should be required.

c. Introduction – Unifying Concepts … . Patterns of Cumulative Change

“Patterns of Cumulative Change: Accumulated changes through time, some gradual and some sporadic, account for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural systems. The general idea is that the present arises from materials and forms of the past. An example of cumulative change is the biological theory of evolution, which explains the process of descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors. Additional examples are continental drift, which is part of plate tectonic theory, fossilization, and erosion. Patterns of cumulative change also help to describe the current structure of the universe. Although science proposes theories to explain changes, the actual causes of many changes are currently unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe, the origin of fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, the origin of major body plans during the Cambrian explosion, etc.).

Explanation: This kind of change is a perfect example of an application of the NCLB advice.

The sentences before the proposed addition suggest that a purely natural and evolutionary process in fact “accounts” for all “objects, organisms and natural systems.” This implies that science has answered all of the fundamental questions of life. But that is hardly the case. In this area there is a real need to inform students about important questions that remain unanswered.

whew!