Kansas Hearings: Harris

Posted by PvM on June 12, 2005 05:24 PM

On page 28, in the Kansas Science Hearing May 5, Mr. Irigonegaray is cross examining witness Harris and exposes the contradictory beliefs.

Harris clearly accepts that science should be dealing with naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations should not be allowed. And yet he objects at the same time that the science standards should mention something about guided/unguided and the fact that they don’t is a problem…

It seems to me that Phillip Johnson has left a legacy of confusion when he conflated philosophical and methodological naturalism. Too bad that countless Christians are left with an inability to reconcile their faith with scientific fact and theory: Christianity in Crisis…

Harris is asked about science and accepting any particular religious view or atheistic view. When asked about where in the standards it takes a position where it references atheistic views, Harris answers that he does not find them in the standards explicitly and that’s the problem.

Q. You would agree with science should not involve itself with accepting a particular theistic view, but rather to use the rigorous scientific process to search for answers?

A. Or atheistic view.

Q. Where in the standards do you find any reference to atheistic views to be the practice in the state?

A. I don’t find them written explicitly in the standards.

Q. Are you aware that there are many people, millions of people throughout the world that believe that God acts through natural process and that science does investigate the natural process and that it is not incompatible for someone to be both a scientist and a religious person?

A. Yeah, I’m aware there are a lot of people like that.

Q. Not a problem with that?

A. Well, I have— I think they don’t understand evolutionary theory very well. And I think the position that God invented evolution to make all of this is a faith statement, it’s not a scientific statement.

Q. Where do the science standards say anything about unguided or undirected?

A. That’s the problem, they don’t.

Q. So you’re suggesting that because the standards don’t say that, that is a problem?

A. That’s why we’re— that’s why we asked that it be added because that is the fundamental theory and it needs to be exposed and it needs to be disclosed.

Q. Whose fundamental theory is it?

A. Well, I could read some quotes from evolutionary biologists who write textbooks that say it is a completely unguided process.

Q. Referring to the science standards?

A. No, the science standards do not say that.

Q. And that’s what this is about is science standards?

A. Exactly. It’s what’s left out of the science standards.

Q. Should science be involved with the process of attempting to ascertain how the natural world around us functions?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your opinion that it is appropriate to teach students supernatural answers for that process in the science curriculum?

A. No.

Q. So you would agree with me that supernatural or miraculous explanations should not be allowed?

A. Not in science education.

In the second excerpt, Harris is asked about if the standards state that evolution is based on atheism or in conflict with a belief in God. Harris accepts that science should not deal in religious arguments such as the supernatural and yet he seems to object to the standards not mentioning religion.

Q. Do the standards state anywhere that science or evolution theory is based on atheism or in any way in conflict with belief in God?

A. No, the standards do not address that.

Q. Is it your opinion that to believe in evolution one must adhere to naturalism?

A. If you would define evolution for me.

Q. Evolution as it is in the mainstream of scientific understanding.

A. That’s what I need to have defined.

Q. You don’t understand what I mean by evolution?

A. I know that that’s the slipperiest term in town today and that term can mean change over time, which I agree with completely. That term can mean all that we have in the world today is an accident and I disagree with that. So I need a definition. Q. Is evolution defined in Draft 2?

A. It’s defined in toto, yes. It’s described—actually evolution is— I don’t think it’s described quite like that as a definition like a dictionary definition, but it’s certainly benchmark three, standard three, the 8th through 12th grade is all evolution.

Q. And is it your opinion that that definition stands for naturalism and some sort of religion?

A. The uncritical acceptance of a perspective that says all of life is here by chance, which is, I think, what the minority— excuse me the majority report portrays.

Q. Where does it say that?

A. That’s what I see it in toto. In words it doesn’t say it, that’s what I see.

Q. So once again, you are assuming that that’s what it says? (Reporter interrupts). Just please hang on. You are simply making an assumption that that’s what it means even though that that is not what it says, correct?

A. I am making the assumption based on working on those standards for the last nine months, yes.

Q. The question is, that’s not what the standards say, correct?

A. We think they need to say it more clearly what evolution is, that’s why we have the Minority Report.

Q. And is it your opinion that mainstream science today is, in fact, analogous to religion?

A. No, no, no, not at all. We’re just talking a tiny sliver of science today that concerns itself with the origin of life. The origin of the universe, that area, I think is fundamentally driven by a naturalistic philosophy, but that is a very, very small piece of science.

Q. Based on your interpretation, is it your opinion that the majority are atheists?

A. No.

Q. You would agree, would you not, that there is absolutely no conflict between individuals possessing a particular faith and their ability to work in science?

A. I agree.

Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it is exceedingly important that science - for the betterment of humanity, for the education of our children, and for the separation of church and state - should not include atheistic views?

A. I think it shouldn’t include any philosophical or religious views.

Q. I have nothing further for you.

What a witness, arguing that the standards should remain neutral with respect to philosophical and religious views, and who argues nevertheless that the problem with the standards is that they do not include such views…

The good thing about these hearings is that they not only show the scientific vacuity of ID, but also the religious motivations of its supporters. I can’t wait to hear their testimony quoted in the what seems, inevitable, court case.
DI must be shuddering at the thought of yet another poorly thought out court case where ID is put to the ‘test’.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1136

Comment #34898

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 12, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

I was rather impressed (unfavorably) with the consistent ID responses to the simple question “what is the theory of ID all about?”:

Harris testimony:

10 Q. Would you explain why you believe— what it is 09:20AM
11 that you believe should not be prohibited?
12 A. Well, what is basically Intelligent Design?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Well, I guess at it’s core, the way that I
15 would describe it, is sort of by contrast. In 09:20AM
16 my view, and I think this is true, evolution
17 really is a claim— evolutionary theory or
18 Darwinian evolutionary theory is a claim that
19 all the apparent design in life, and most
20 everybody recognizes that things look like 09:20AM
21 they’re designed, but that it is only apparent,
22 that it is only an illusion, that really law
23 and luck, chance and chemical interactions are
24 really responsible for all this what looks like
25 design, but it really isn’t design. A design 09:21AM
0042
1 has intent and purpose and it’s put together in
2 forethought. That’s a long definition.
3 Intelligent Design is simply a scientific
4 disagreement with that respect.

<snip>

If this is all about science and not about 09:49AM
21 philosophy or religion why do you keep bringing
22 up atheism, materialism, naturalism, and
23 humanism to this argument?
24 A. Well, in my remarks I said it’s not all about
25 science. This is a scientific controversy that 09:49AM
0065
1 has powerful theistic implications. So it’s
2 not all about science. It’s— the core is
3 about science, but there is a penumbra, there’s
4 an umbrella out here that’s philosophical and
5 religious and that’s where it comes in.

<snip>

Q. Who is the designer?
7 A. That, I don’t know.
8 Q. Would the designer imply a supernatural being?
9 A. If you could define supernatural for me.
Page 29
Science Hearing May 5 2005.txt
10 Q. Something other than human. 09:57AM
11 A. Other than human?
12 Q. Something other than the biological processes.
13 A. Something— I think that it’s conceivable that
14 something like that could exist.
15 Q. When you talk about an intelligent designer, to 09:57AM
16 you personally what does that mean?
17 A. To me personally I— because I hold the
18 Christian faith I believe that we be guided by
19 the Bible. That’s a faith position, that’s not
20 a scientific position. 09:57AM
21 Q. So the designer, according to you, would be a
22 Christian type designer?
23 A. Well— and if I was a Muslim I would say the
24 designer is Alah. If I was any other faith I
25 might say— you know, that’s— again, that’s a 09:58AM
0071
1 faith position, that’s not science. That’s my
2 opinion outside of the science classroom.

Thaxton testimony:

Q. You would agree with, would you not, that the
23 science standards provide a foundation for the
24 development of a curriculum and they do not
25 limit the scope of knowledge? 11:22AM
0123
1 A. Well, I think they do limit the scope of
2 knowledge.
3 Q. In what manner, sir?
4 A. They adopt the natural cause only perspective
5 and I think that limits them. 11:22AM
6 Q. And you’re suggesting that supernatural causes
7 should be inserted?
8 A. That’s an example of precisely the kind of
9 thinking that I said the majority report put in
10 that I thought was the problem. 11:22AM
11 Q. Well, if it’s limited to the natural and you
12 suggest that that is inappropriate to limit it
13 to natural, wouldn’t logically that would
14 require us to teach the supernatural?
15 A. If you’re talking about metaphysics, yes, but 11:23AM
16 we’re not talking about metaphysics.
17 Q. We’re talking about science?
Page 51
Science Hearing May 5 2005.txt
18 A. Natural does not mean naturalism unless you
19 exclude the possibility that— not exclude, if
20 you say only natural causes are permitted that, 11:23AM
21 in effect, is saying— it’s what’s tacit
22 naturalism. Even though you haven’t used it,
23 you’re saying natural cause only.
24 Q. Sir, please don’t put words in my mouth. I
25 have not used the word naturalism. Naturalism 11:23AM
0124
1 is something completely different.
2 A. That’s true.
3 Q. Naturalism implies that the individual with
4 that belief excludes the possibility of a God
5 in any process. I am talking about the natural 11:23AM
6 process which is involved in science. Do you
7 believe that in an appropriate scientific
8 curriculum for the children of the State of
9 Kansas supernatural theistic opinions should be
10 included, yes or no? 11:24AM
11 A. No.

Wells’ testimony:

Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design
19 must, in the end, conclude that a designer was
20 involved? 02:09PM
21 A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something
22 is actually designed, then a designing mind had
23 to do it.
24 Q. But you’re not suggesting it was the design of
25 man? 02:09PM
0187
1 A. Designed by man?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the
4 scene, no it couldn’t be.
5 Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is 02:09PM
6 a supernatural one, is it not?
7 A. I won’t go there.

Ely’s testimony:

Q. What’s your alternative explanation how the
11 human species came into existence if it is not
12 through common descent?
13 A. Design.
14 Q. And design would imply a designer?
15 A. Implies a designer, but we don’t go there

1 Q. Isn’t design a philosophical assumption?
2 A. No.
3 Q. How do we falsify the designer?
4 A. We don’t go there. We’re not going to talk
5 about the designer.

Q. So philosophically discuss it, but it’s not a
20 good idea to interpose the supernatural in what
21 should be a scientific process. Correct?
22 A. We’re not doing that.
23 MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further
24 questions.

DeHart’s testimony:

Q. So one side of that story supports one kind of
3 a religious belief and the other side supports
4 the different kind, is that— is that a fair
5 statement?
6 A. The only concept— in the words of Steven
7 Wineberg, the only concept of a designer that
8 makes sense is a designer who creates. And so
9 if you’re saying that nature is capable of
10 creating that precludes the idea that there is
11 a designer and so that is what— a construct of
12 ethological naturalism or philosophical
13 naturalism.
14 Q. You believe removing your supplemental
15 materials respectively caused you to promote if
16 you were just going to teach one side of the
17 story, a— a naturalistic explanation. Is that
18 right?
19 A. Well, yes. It shows that the evidence,
20 empirical evidence is there to support a
21 Darwinian view, which is that natural selection
22 acting on random mutation is how man got there.
23 There’s no theology. There’s no purpose or
24 inordinate.

Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the
22 human species came into existence if you do not
23 accept common descent?
24 A. Design.
25 Q. When did that design occur?
0103
1 A. I don’t know.
2 Q. Who was the designer?
3 A. Science cannot answer that. When I’m teaching
4 my class I do not answer that.

20 Q. My question is is the word naturalism anywhere
21 in the Kansas standards? Yes or no?
22 A. No, but it’s implicit in the way that you’ve
23 defined science.
24 Q. As a search for natural answers, is that the
25 implication you suggest?
0106
1 A. Only natural answers.
2 Q. And you suggest that a better alternative would
3 be to include supernatural answers?
4 A. Intelligent causes.
5 Q. Intelligent cause is a disguise for a
6 supernatural answer. Correct?
7 A. Darwinism masquerades as materialist—
8 materialism.
9 Q. That’s not my question. Listen carefully. I
10 asked you whether or not the suggestion that
11 intelligent design is a masquerade for a
12 supernatural answer. Correct?
13 A. That’s a leading question.
14 Q. Of course it is. Is it or not?
15 A. I think if the evidence shows that things have
16 intelligent causes we should be able to go
17 there in science, if it’s about searching for
18 truth.

11 Q. Do you believe it is appropriate for students
12 to be exposed to a teacher’s individual
13 religious views in public schools?
14 A. Neither those of atheism or theism, they should
15 stick to the job of science, yes.
16 Q. Is it your job that evolution as it is taught
17 in mainstream America today is atheistic?
18 A. Well —
19 Q. Yes or no?
20 A. Yes, by definition it is.

11 Q. Do you believe it is appropriate for students
12 to be exposed to a teacher’s individual
13 religious views in public schools?
14 A. Neither those of atheism or theism, they should
15 stick to the job of science, yes.
16 Q. Is it your job that evolution as it is taught
17 in mainstream America today is atheistic?
18 A. Well —
19 Q. Yes or no?
20 A. Yes, by definition it is.

Gonzalez-Bravo testimony:

Are you saying
5 there that the evolutionary explanation is a
6 naturalistic one and if that’s the only
7 explanation that’s permitted then you’re
8 effectively skewing belief in that direction?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What— would you say that the naturalistic
11 explanation supports non theistic beliefs while
12 the non naturalistic or the disagreement with
13 that naturalistic belief supports theistic
14 beliefs?
15 A. That seems to be the concern that has been
16 expressed to me by many parents.
17 Q. And the parents’ concern is that you aren’t
18 promoting a curriculum that supports only one
19 kind of religious belief?
20 A. Right.

Millam testimony:

9 Q. What is the alternative explanation that you
10 propose then for human species?
11 A. Again, I’m a chemist, not a biologist.
12 Q. I didn’t ask you that. I asked you what is
13 your explanation if you do not believe in
14 common descent from prehominid ancestors?
15 A. I do not think the scientific evidence is
16 sufficient to give an answer to that question.
17 Q. You have no personal view about that?
18 A. I have a personal view, but the question is
19 what does science say.
20 Q. What is your personal view about that?
21 A. I— again, I do not believe that the scientific
22 evidence is sufficient to rule out —
23 Q. I didn’t ask you scientifically. I’m asking
24 you what is your personal opinion about that
25 issue?
0163
1 A. Again, I— at this point I do not believe in a
2 natural explanation for the origin of humanity.
3 I’m willing to change my mind if I find that
Page 67
Science Hearing May 06 2005.txt
4 evidence.

Bryson testimony:

15 Q. What is your alternative explanation for how
16 the human species came into being if not from a
17 common descent from prehominids?
Page 10
Science Hearing May 07 2005.txt
18 A. From science, I have no alternative
19 explanation.
20 Q. In your personal opinion?
21 A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an
22 intelligent designer.
23 Q. And when did that intelligent designer create
24 the human species?
25 A. I’m not sure.
0025
1 Q. Now, that opinion that you have about
2 intelligent design, that’s not based on
3 science, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. That’s based upon your theistic views?
6 A. Correct.

Meyer testimony:

13 Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an
14 alternative explanation for the human species
15 if not common descent from prehominid
16 ancestors?
17 A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at
18 the other end of the history of life, namely
19 the origin of the first life in the Cambrian
20 phylum.
Page 41
Science Hearing May 07 2005.txt
21 Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the
22 question I have just proposed to you, which is
23 if you do not believe that human beings have a
24 common descent with prehominid ancestors, what
25 is your personal alternative explanation for
0100
1 how human beings came into existence?
2 A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal
3 common descent and I’m skeptical about some of
4 the evidence that has been marshaled for the
5 idea that humans and prehominids are connected.
6 But as I said, it wouldn’t bother me
7 (unintelligible) stronger than I presently
8 think.
9 Q. What is your personal opinion at this time?
10 A. That I’m skeptical about the Darwinian accounts
11 of such things, but that it wouldn’t bother me
12 if it turned out to be different. I think my—
13 I also would tell you that humans and the rest
14 of the non human living world, that humans have
15 qualitatively different features that I think
16 are very mysterious and hard to explain on any
17 materialistic account of the origin of human
18 life.

Should the teaching of
25 science— and let’s say with Kansas. Should
0110
1 the teaching of science curriculum in Kansas as
2 it relates to evolution be free— completely
3 free of supernatural causes?
4 A. I don’t think anyone is proposing a
5 supernatural cause.

Menuge testimony:

Q. What is the alternative explanation?
8 A. Well, there are a number of alternative
9 explanations. Right now, as this book shows,
10 there are views looking at self-organization,
11 which don’t necessarily agree with that
12 viewpoint. They may or they may not. But
13 there is also the idea of design.
14 Q. And your opinion as to when that design
15 occurred?
16 A. I don’t know.

Nord testimony:

What does descent from
6 mean? If that means that neo— if
7 Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are adequate, fully
8 adequate for the explanation, I don’t believe
9 that. But if design or theological
10 explanations are allowed to account for
Page 14
Science Hearing May 07 2005 PM.txt
11 explaining at least part of what happens in
12 evolution, then I accept that.

Akyol testimony:

Q. You’ve mentioned ID theory. Would you please
22 tell us precisely what ID theory is?
23 A. Intelligent Design theory is a scientific
24 theory which argues that life on earth can be
25 explained as a result of natural laws, chance,
0068
1 and intelligence. So it’s a theory which
2 argues that intelligence can be detected in
3 nature and, yes, it is being detected. So—
4 and it’s also a theory which disagrees with
5 Neo-Darwinian theory, which argues that life on
6 earth is the product of chance and laws

All of these IDers have given the very same “answers” that *I* get whenever I ask an IDer to tell me about his “theory”.  What I get are various versions of either (1) “Jesus saves!!!!” or (2) “I don’t have to tell you”.

It’s nice to see IDers be consistent, for a change.

I can’t WAIT to see these dolts argue in court, with a straight face, that (1) evolution is unfair because it only accepts naturalistic explanations, but (2) they don’t want any supernatural explanations to be taught, and (3) they won’t tell us what the designer is because “we won’t go there”.

These court cases will be SUCH slam dunks.

Comment #34933

Posted by Harrison Bolter on June 12, 2005 09:46 PM (e) (s)

Well, this has been said before, but I think we’re in for a long slog. It seems obvious that these people are either A) lying through their teeth or B) somehow able to compartmentalize their brains to the extent that they just do not see how they are contradicting themselves. Such people are, I think, inaccessible to reason and logic, and they won’t give up easily (or, perhaps, ever). And, alas, they have the ears of the leaders of the party in power…

Comment #34934

Posted by steve on June 12, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)

These ID guys look clueless.

Comment #34936

Posted by anonymous on June 12, 2005 10:17 PM (e) (s)

Possibly because they are clueless.

Comment #34948

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 13, 2005 12:29 AM (e) (s)

This lot was the best the ID movement could come up with to defend their ‘theory’ at the court trial? I can’t wait to see what they do in front of a real court.

Comment #34968

Posted by a maine yankee on June 13, 2005 06:45 AM (e) (s)

“To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery,” Dawkins said, according to a BBC report. “It is teaching something that is utter nonsense. Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled.”

The above leaves little left to say, eh?

Comment #34969

Posted by Ron Okimoto on June 13, 2005 07:02 AM (e) (s)

At a real court trial the ID side will not call any of these guys again.  They would have to explain what is written in these transcripts and their other activities.  Just look at the guys that they got to testify at the Arkansas trial on scientific creationism.  Morris, and Gish didn’t testify because they had left too much of a paper trail.  Guys like Dembski and Meyers wouldn’t testify for the same reason.  They are left with the second string, and now they will have to look for a new second string.

Comment #34970

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 13, 2005 07:11 AM (e) (s)

At a real court trial the ID side will not call any of these guys again.  They would have to explain what is written in these transcripts and their other activities.  Just look at the guys that they got to testify at the Arkansas trial on scientific creationism.  Morris, and Gish didn’t testify because they had left too much of a paper trail.  Guys like Dembski and Meyers wouldn’t testify for the same reason.  They are left with the second string, and now they will have to look for a new second string.

Meyer did testify, so did Behe and Wells.

Dembski didn’t.

And you’re right —- if any of these dolts show up in court in Dover, their statements in Kansas (as well as all their written publications) will be used to skewer them.

Comment #34974

Posted by SEF on June 13, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

Can’t the science side subpoena the ID leaders/”experts” anyway, if they wanted to do so (ie in order to expose the vacuous and dishonest nature of their activities)?

Comment #35005

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on June 13, 2005 12:29 PM (e) (s)

Regarding DeHart:
“2 Q. Who was the designer?
3 A. Science cannot answer that. When I’m teaching
4 my class I do not answer that.”

Why can’t science answer that? It is not possible that clues about the designer’s identity or source of origin might exist (particularly if the designer was “merely” an extraterrestrial and not a supernatural being)? And doesn’t Hoyle’s panspermia hypothesis suggest that the vehicles of design information (in this case, extraterrestrial viruses) may be found?

The correct answer is: “science might not be able to answer that”. To claim that “science *cannot* answer that” prematurely curtails such investigations.

So much for the idea that ID would enable progress in science.

Comment #35041

Posted by tytlal on June 13, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

If I believe something is real, clearly when something is not, would I be labled “crazy” or “in need of help”?  Why do the religious fantics get a free pass in the name of religion if they believe the Earth is flat, for example.  Sure, we all get a good laugh but what if … I claim the Earth is flat but not in the name of religion?  Would I not be labled as crazy?  The sun is GREEN.  Why not.

Seems to me too many people in the name of religion are allowed to believe just about anything because it is their “beliefs”.

Latest news on Dover?  Witnesses/experts, etc.?  How will the hearings differ from Kanasas.

Thanks

Comment #35061

Posted by C.J. O'Brien on June 13, 2005 06:26 PM (e) (s)

Seems to me too many people in the name of religion are allowed to believe just about anything because it is their “beliefs”.


Daniel Dennett treats this double standard in his book “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”

To badly paraphrase, basically he says that allowing religious propositions into the argument is “Intellectual tennis without the net,” which he is happy to play:
So, it’s faith’s serve. The return (Dennett) is “So God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil?”
Faith: “That doesn’t make sense!”
Reason: “Oh, so you want the net down for your serves, but back up again for my return?”

I’m afraid that’s exactly what the IDers want.

Post a Comment

Use Kwickcode Formatting to markup your comments. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?