Keith -- I'm still surfing around in the wealth of materials you've led
me too.
You have no doubt seen all the stuff below before -- perhaps some on the
LISTSERV would like to see it.
I found the following to, perhaps, give a decent summary of the issues. I
have snipped part of it --the full page is at
http://www.arn.org/docs/Kansas/KSBEresponsetoIDNetJan302001.htm
The Intelligent Design Network (new organization?) wrote a response to
the committee. This is the committee's answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Response of the Writing Committee to the Cover Letter and Document
Prepared by the Intelligent Design Network
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
[Part of a Memo Dated January 30, 2001 to The KSBE]
The Intelligent Design Network prepared a lengthy response... The Board
directed the writing committee to consider the ID Network's document in
preparing its current draft (6.1) of science standards.
The writing committee set the context for its response by quoting from
the Intelligent Design Network's cover letter of January 5, 2001 to the
Kansas State Board of Education:
"Our proposal is focused on one issue. It seeks only to stop the
teaching/preaching of naturalism to our children in the area of origins
science - science that deals with the origin of the universe, of life and
its diversity. As you know, Naturalism is a doctrine or belief that
states that all phenomena result only from natural causes - chance and
necessity - and that design inferences are invalid. It is not a proven
theory. It is a philosophy."
My comment: If someone insists that naturalism is a "belief," that means
necessarily that they are seeing it as a
philosophy, not as a science. I don't know how to interpret their use of
"doctrine" above. The IDN's response is
not at all clear here. Philosophical naturalism is a position that
insists all events are a result of natural causes.
Methodological naturalism, still a foundational assumption of science,
regardless of Phil Johnson's attempts
to equate it with philosophical naturalism, is a position that I, acting
as a scientist, assume that all events are a
result of natural causes. Richard Dickinson, in a recent issue of
PERSPECTIVES, called science as played by
that rule a "game. (Not pejoratively, by the way). The physicist Bohr
observed that It is wrong to think that the
task of physics is to find out how nature is. He insisted that "Physics
concerns only what we can SAY about nature."
I find both these gentlemen very persuasive.
The IDN is correct, IMHO, when they call Naturalism a philosophy. But
they err in ascribing to the science standards that
that philosophy is what must be taught. What is to be taught is
Methodological naturalism, a rule of the "game,"
and those, presumably the people in the IDN, who equate PN with MN (in
error) are free to do so, but not free to
impose on the rest of the world their misconceptions.
Writing Committee's Response: Naturalism, as defined by the ID network,
is a philosophy not a science. In contrast to naturalistic philosophy,
the proposed draft six standards are about science. ... these standards
do not foster teaching naturalistic philosophy.... draft six describes
the limits of science: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural
explanations for what we observe in the world around us.
My comment: I could argue that the sentence above might be fleshed out,
but it is directly to the point.
Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and
logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy
skepticism." This means that by its methods, science limits its
investigations to the natural world. It does not propose or even suggest
that ALL phenomena result from only natural causes. Draft six does not
state, "Nature is all that is or was, or ever will be."
Again -- I might argue that the last thee sentences be put in bold print
at appropriate places within the standard. Perhaps
they are;I did not read the entire (104 pages) document.
Consistent with the above response, science itself is limited to natural
explanations. To open it on par with non-natural explanations would
erroneously elevate the scope and importance of science. To adopt a
science definition not anchored in the natural world would make these
standards the first to invite non-science into the science classroom.
A good conclusion to a well-measured response, IMHO. I don't expect ID
to go away; indeed, I hope that it
does not, for many of the questions they raise are good ones. But I am
somewhat concerned that they, with their
currently defined "let the supernatural in" position attain a majority
position, might open the door to all kinds of foolishness.
---------------------------------------------------
Again, Keith, thanks. I have had a good educational experience from this.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:15:31 EST