Burt Humburg posted Entry 3030 on March 31, 2007 05:32 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3020

In 2001, evolution was poised to return to the the Kansas Science Standards. The Intelligent Design Network objected to them and proposed changes that would have left open the door to teaching creationism. Kansas Citizens for Science responded to their proposal, which was sent to all members of the state board. One might suspect the response to have been too parochial for anything other than Kansas creationism; one would be wrong: the response serves as a prototype response for many creationist arguments and works nicely as a reference for letters to the editor even today.

Find it below, after the fold. It is also available in PDF and RTF formats.

A Response to the Intelligent Design Network’s Proposals to Include “Intelligent Design” in the Kansas Science Standards
Kansas Citizens for Science February 12, 2001
www.kcfs.org

The Intelligent Design network (IDnet) has repeatedly argued that “intelligent design” (ID) should be included in the Kansas science standards.

The IDnet’s proposals to insert ID into the standards have been based on two main beliefs: that science embraces the philosophy of Naturalism and that “intelligent design” is a valid “competing hypothesis” to the theory of evolution.

The IDnet’s main beliefs are not accepted by the scientific community. They are in fact considered wrong. On that basis alone, the IDnet’s proposals should not be included in the state science standards.

Both the nature of science and the specific scientific content described in the 2001 Kansas science standards represent essential, mainstream science as practiced worldwide.

It is not the responsibility of the state BOE to decide what is and is not verified science. If the ideas put forward by the IDnet ever become an essential part of mainstream science, then they may earn a place in the public school science curriculum. At this time, however, the IDnet’s quarrel is with the scientific community, not with public education. The IDnet should not be allowed to use the public school curriculum as a means of bypassing the accepted ways for establishing scientific knowledge.

From their two main beliefs, the IDnet concludes that science has atheistic implications, that science has contributed to the moral and cultural decay of society, that the evidence for “design” is censored, and that there are Constitutional reasons why design should be given consideration in the science curriculum. These conclusions, being based on false premises, are also wrong.

“Naturalism” and the Nature of Science
The IDnet believes that science, by limiting itself to “natural” explanations, as stated in Draft 6, inherently embraces philosophical Naturalism [their capitalization], the philosophical belief that “all phenomena result only from natural causes - chance and necessity.” (page 1)

The IDnet is wrong: science neither embraces nor endorses philosophical Naturalism. Science is purposely limited to seeking natural explanations for observable phenomena. Science does not attempt to offer theological explanations for such phenomena. Neither does science attempt to explain our moral, aesthetic, or spiritual experience: these fall outside the realm of science.

Seeking natural explanations has proven to be highly successful in building a universally accessible body of knowledge about how the world works. Explanations involving non-natural causes cannot be investigated empirically with the tools of science, and have not successfully contributed to science.

Nowhere in the practice or teaching of science is there a commitment to the belief that what science studies is all that exists, or that the methods of science are the only valid human ways of seeking knowledge. Science is not a dogmatic philosophy about either the ultimate nature of the world or the full nature of human beings.

It is true that some individuals within the scientific community have used evolution as a vehicle to promote a true &quotphilosophical Naturalism.” However, it is equally true that many scientists who accept the evidence for evolution are also committed and outspoken theists. Both groups of individuals see our current scientific understanding of the universe as supporting their philosophical position. However, neither position is an inherent implication of that scientific understanding. Science itself is neutral on issues of the ultimate nature of reality.

Design
The IDnet claims that natural processes are not sufficient to have produced some features of life, and that an additional type of cause, “design,” the action of “a mind or some form of intelligence,” is necessary to scientifically explain those features. The IDnet writes as if “design” is an obvious and accepted alternative to natural causation, and that a scientific “theory of intelligent design (ID)” exists to compete with the theory of evolution. Neither of these claims is true.

There is no theory of intelligent design. First, ID proposes no testable hypotheses to explain how the alleged design happens - there is no proposed mechanism for design. Second, although ID claims that the identity of the designer is unknown, leaders of the ID movement make it clear the designer is God: the logical alternative to natural causation is obviously supernatural causation. In fact, both William Dembski and Phillip Johnson have recently identified the Word of God as the source and mechanism of “intelligent design.”

ID does not explain how to determine precisely when design has taken place, or how to distinguish between what has been designed and what has evolved. ID writers have proposed vague philosophical concepts for use in detecting design (“irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information”), but they offer no empirical means for applying these concepts to actual reality.

There is no ID research. There are no published scientific papers on ID-based experiments that test any specific aspect of the theory of ID nor produce any new, usable knowledge. There just isn’t any “theory of ID.”

The theory of evolution is truly a scientific theory: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that incorporates observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” (Draft 6) ID, on the other hand, is not even a hypothesis because it makes no testable claims about the world. It is non-empirical speculation.

The IDnet continually calls ID a “competing hypothesis,” but this is a claim without merit. The theory of evolution and ID are not remotely equal in their status as scientific explanations. The IDnet’s repeated argument that ID should be given equal time throughout the standards is unjustified.

The “evidence for design” and “censorship”
ID relies on gaps in our knowledge for its &quotevidence,” pointing to aspects of the natural world which currently have inadequate scientific explanation. However, since science has a reliable history of narrowing such gaps, this type of design argument is forced to continually emphasize new areas of uncertainty. Dependence on such negative evidence does not establish the claim that a supernatural intelligence must be considered in scientific explanations.

IDnet claims that design, and evidence for it, is “censored” because of science’s adherence to Naturalism. The truth is that the propositions of ID and the purported evidence for it have been rejected, not censored, because ID offers neither useful hypotheses nor productive research.

The claim of “censorship” is unfounded. The repeated use of the word, much like that of “competing hypothesis,” is a rhetorical tactic meant to elevate ID to a status that it does not have. It is the nature of the scientific enterprise to evaluate new ideas. At this point, ID has made little progress in being accepted as valid science. To acknowledge this lack of acceptance by excluding ID from the science standards is not censorship.

Religious and Cultural Implications
The IDnet believes that science, by embracing Naturalism, is consistent with, and therefore promotes, atheism, while design is consistent with and promotes theism. They conclude that science’s adherence to Naturalism has important negative moral and cultural consequences such as the “Naturalistic” belief that people’s “ethics and morals can be based on whatever they decide or whatever the scientific elite tells us about nature.” The IDnet is wrong about both of these points.

As explained above, science does not embrace Naturalism. Science does not declare that other types of knowledge are invalid, and it also does not presume to add to those other types of knowledge.

All people reach conclusions about morals, values, and spiritual reality by drawing on such non-scientific sources as religious faith, philosophical belief, and personal choice. They may integrate scientific knowledge into their larger belief system, but scientific knowledge itself forces no inherent moral or spiritual conclusions.

The IDnet incorrectly concludes that, in the interest of fairness, a theistic “theory of ID” is needed to balance the atheism they believe is implied by evolution . The appeal to fairness here is misplaced. Religion and science are complementary ways of looking at the universe, not antagonistic ways of knowing between which people must choose. True fairness involves acknowledging and honoring the interrelated complexity of human knowledge, which demands both scientific and other types of knowledge.

ID attempts to drive a wedge between scientific and religious understanding. If anything is unfair, it is the IDnet’s insistence that accepting the evidence for evolution is incompatible with both a belief in God and a commitment to moral standards.

Draft 6 presents a religiously neutral science. It is ID that inserts theistic considerations into science. The IDnet places too great a value on scientific explanations as an ultimate arbiter of truth. They make the very mistake they claim others are making: trying to find empirical explanations for truths which must be reached in other than scientific ways. It is they who act like “philosophical Naturalists” as they seek to establish an empirical basis for all aspects of the world, including our beliefs about God and morality.

Constitutional issues
The IDnet claims that Constitutional issues arise because the theory of evolution promotes atheism and the theory of ID promotes theism. However, as we have shown, the theory of evolution does not promote atheism and has no inherent religious implications. Therefore, there are no Constitutional issues of the kind mentioned by the IDnet.

The true Constitutional issue here is that ID, if fully articulated to include the nature of the Designer and the undetectable nature of His interventions, is clearly a religious belief, and thus has no place in the science curriculum.

Conclusion
State standards should reflect science that is considered essential and fundamental worldwide. ID does not meet this criteria. The IDnet’s incorrect beliefs about science and its relationship to religious and cultural issues have no place in the Kansas science standards. It is wrong for the IDnet to try to use the public school system as the vehicle to establish these beliefs.

Therefore, for all the reasons outlined in this paper, the proposals made by the IDnet should be rejected, and “intelligent design” ideas should not be incorporated into the Kansas science standards.

Last updated September 7, 2003

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #167732

Posted by Mike Elzinga on March 31, 2007 7:40 PM (e)

Back when Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Jerry Parker and the other characters at the Institute for Creation Research were developing their shtick, they built on, expanded, and reinforced a number of common misconceptions they all have about evolution.

What many people who haven’t watch closely (or who are too young to remember) apparently haven’t realized is that all these same misconceptions and characteristic thinking patterns are still part of the Intelligent Design mentality. They have simply been extended into the realms of microbiology and the philosophy of science. They may have been gussied up to look more academic, but they haven’t changed.

When I first started reading materials from Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and some of the others, I was immediately aware of where this material was coming from because it had all the same identifying fingerprints of previous antievolutionist campaigns from the 1970s. In other words, there are inherent characteristics that clearly identify them which the ID/Creationists cannot avoid and still be ID/Creationists, and these are not just those characteristic religious overtones which they try to hide. It is not entirely clear that they actually understand what these are. If they do not, they misrepresent themselves as scientists. If they do, they are knowingly deceiving the public. Either way, this is what will keep them from ever doing any real science. They will always have to fake it.

This raises an interesting question: Would a pamphlet identifying all these characteristics be helpful to the public, or would it simply alert the ID/Creationists and help them to seek better camouflage? If they already know they are deliberately flimflamming the public, there is an advantage to letting the public in on the ruse. If they don’t really know, then keeping this knowledge confidential gives the advantage to people who can readily finger them.

I detest the mind games these IDiots play. I tend to stick to their history, their sectarian wedge agenda, their repeated distortions of science, and their evasions of scientific accountability as arguments against letting them into the science curriculum. There is a 30 to 40 year record of this kind of crap that they can no longer deny.

The resources, references, and links provided by NCSE, TalkOrigins, and Panda’s Thumb are all excellent. Maybe a pamphlet that outlines a suggested step-by-step tour of these would be worthwhile.

Comment #167736

Posted by Wheels on March 31, 2007 9:42 PM (e)

Those “common misconceptions they all have about evolution” really have pervaded the public consciousness. Friday’s newspaper featured a Letter to the Editor that regurgitated the old “evolution isn’t scientific” line, asked those infamous Six Questions (half of which didn’t even concern evolution but cosmology and abiogenesis) and proudly proclaimed that “evolutionists” had yet to give the writer an answer for them.
Maybe I should step up to the plate. It’s always so hard to limit good answers to 150 words, though.

Comment #167748

Posted by Richard Wein on April 1, 2007 4:03 AM (e)

“Explanations involving non-natural causes cannot be investigated empirically with the tools of science”

I’m still waiting to see a justification of this claim, Burt.

Comment #167753

Posted by Vyoma on April 1, 2007 7:39 AM (e)

A natural cause can be investigated empirically by the effect it has on the physical world. The instruments and methods used to investigate them can only be physical; things which do not occur physically cannot be quantified. Conversely, if something does have an impact on the physical world, and only if it does, it can be investigated using physical means.

If something is postulated to be non-natural, it has no impact on nature (if it did, at the very least the means by which it interacted with the physical world must be observable). If it is impossible to observe the effect of some entity on the physical world, in other words, it falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry. I don’t know what domain it would fall into, since observation and thus objective evidence would be impossible, leaving it a matter purely of speculation, but it wouldn’t be science.

Comment #167755

Posted by Burt Humburg on April 1, 2007 8:26 AM (e)

Hi Richard. Good to hear from you again.

One of the things I really appreciate about the internet, and people really, is how there is such a diversity of opinion. This may be a bit meta for those not involved with the conversation, but the first flyer I posted, the “Word About Intelligent Design Creationism” one, saw one of the final commenters not being too impressed by it, saying that it had no zazz for the regular reader. I took it to mean, essentially, that it was far too detailed. Now Richard points out a claim he made several years ago to me, one with which I largely agree, that natural cannot be conclusively defined as observable, testable, measurable, etc. I didn’t used to agree with him but he brought me around; still, it’s a flyer, not a ponderous philosophical treatise. Surely there’s a role for calling something that looks like a spade but might not be a spade if God did this or that a spade for the purposes of brevity, if nothing else, yes?

Too detailed. Not detailed enough. I love the internet. And it is good to hear from you again, Richard.

BCH

Comment #167760

Posted by Richard Simons on April 1, 2007 9:14 AM (e)

It’s always so hard to limit good answers to 150 words, though.

Perhaps a brief note saying ‘all your answers can be found at Talkorigins’ and a longer piece to see if the editor will accept it as an op-ed. If it is a local newspaper, the editor is likely to be happy to receive something.

Comment #167761

Posted by Rolf Aalberg on April 1, 2007 9:50 AM (e)

Richsrd Wein responded to Burt’s

“Explanations involving non-natural causes cannot be investigated empirically with the tools of science.”

with:

“I’m still waiting to see a justification of this claim, Burt.”

I can only refer to this in layman’s terms, but it is a subject that has been haunting me for years: Is supernature accessible with any human, or scientific tools?

I base my view on the assumption that there can be no effect without a cause (except at the quantum level but even there randomness is not the rule of day; it is statistically coherent.) But then again, I have learned that our observation affects whatever we observe, like we cannot determine both position and velocity at the same time.

This leads me to the subject of action-reaction. Am I wrong in believing that nothing can have a physical effect on an object without itself being effected? Interaction may be a usable word in that context.

I find it difficult to express my thoughts on this - I can only hope that your - whomever *you* may be - intuition can supply the missing connection. What I am aiming at is that if we should be able to construct means, methods or instruments that could detect supernature in action, and we need not make any bones about it - supernature in this context would mean God, wouldn’t it? So I can only conclude that if we could measure God’s activity, God would also ‘feel’ or somehow be affected by our action.

But then he would not be God, would he?

Another way of looking at it, as far as I understand, nothing in the universe happens without energy in some form being involved, tranferred, released. How can anything outside of the universe have an effect on something inside the universe? Would that not imply that energy in some form from outside the universe would have to enter into the universe, with obvious consequences?

I believe the universe, regardless of topography, is a closed system. Can it be anything else? If it is not closed, my questions are of course irrelevant.

Please forgive me if this is nonsense, and even if not, this may be the wrong place for my question.

I am a regular lurker at PT, but realize it is not a playground for me.

Comment #167888

Posted by Jack Krebs on April 1, 2007 9:13 PM (e)

Thanks to Burt for bringing this document back up. We worked hard on it, submitting it to the state Board of Education as a definitive response to the ID proposals for the science standards. I think it stands up pretty well for being six years old.

Comment #167912

Posted by Anonymous on April 2, 2007 4:15 AM (e)

Students should be encouraged to critically analyze evolution theory. Teaching evolution theory to students by spoonfeeding and brainwashing is unscholarly and anti-intellectual.

Comment #167914

Posted by Richard Wein on April 2, 2007 4:19 AM (e)

Hi Burt. Your reply to me suggests that the claim in question can be justified, but the justification was just too long to be put in the letter. Please point me to where I can find the justification, preferably on the internet.