Kansas Closing arguments

To all;

The closing arguments at the Kansas BOE hearings given in support of
the science standards revision committee's document (Draft 2) is now
available in full at the Coalition for Science website
<http://www.coalitionforscience.org>. You will find the link towards
the bottom of the main page under "Events."

I include below a portion of those closing remarks. I think that the
Draft 2 standards were excellent and one of the clearest public
statements by the scientific and education community that science in
general, and evolutionary theory in particular, are categorically not
based on atheism or materialism. The Draft 2 standards also
unambiguously state that science has no power to state that evolution
is divinely unguided or purposeless.

Despite this, the Minority Report writers and the ID witnesses insist
that evolution does support atheism and is based on scientific
materialism. They have then rewritten the standards to state that
evolution means an unguided and purposeless process. The reason is
that only by declaring explicitly that evolution is atheism can they
argue that design must be included as a "balance." I find this action
of the ID supporters to be unconscionable.

Keith

The nature of science, and Intelligent Design theology

1. Draft 2 is neutral in respect to the nature of spiritual reality.
2. Members of many faiths, including mainstream Christians, find no
conflict between their theological beliefs and the fact that science
“seeks natural explanations of what we observe in the world around us,”
as stated in Draft 2.
3. The Minority report claims science is an atheistic enterprise that
implicitly endorses the philosophy of naturalism - the position that
there is no spiritual reality. This is incorrect. Draft 2 does not
mention “naturalism”, “unguided”, “purposeless” or any of the other
attributes of science that the Minority claim are in Draft 2.
4. The Minority report, and the Intelligent Design movement in general,
denounce and reject the beliefs of those people of faith who accept
science and evolution.
5. The Minority report, however, advances a narrow sectarian
theological view of science that conflicts with mainstream Christianity
and many other faiths.
6. The actions of the state Board in advancing the Minority report by
holding these hearings raises serious legal questions about violations
of the establishment clause of the Unites States constitution and the
Kansas Constitution.

Draft 2 is neutral in respect to spiritual reality

1. Draft 2 accurately states that “Science is a human activity of
systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the
world around us.”
2. Draft 2 does not state explicitly or implicitly that science is the
only way of explaining the world, nor that the physical world which
science investigates is all there is to reality.
3. Draft 2 does not endorse philosophical naturalism nor atheism. The
words and concepts ”naturalism,” “unguided,” “purposeless,” etc. do not
appear in Draft 2
4. Standard 7, Benchmark 1, Indicator 5, grades 8-12 of draft 2 says,
“The student understands there are many issues which involve morals,
ethics, values or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can
explain, but for which solid scientific literacy is useful.”
This sentence, written with the input of Minority members of the
committee, clearly says that science does not claim to offer a complete
explanation of the world, and that Draft 2 recognizes the importance of
“morals, ethics, values or spiritual beliefs.”
5. However, Minority witness Roger DeHart, when asked to comment on the
fact that this statement clearly did not endorse naturalism, replied
that the statement was “bogus.”

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, nor 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.
Keith Miller, an evangelical Christian and a Kansas University geology
professor, gave a talk last Wednesday on “Ending the ‘Warfare’ of
Science and Faith.” (Exhibit: “Ending the ‘Warfare’ of Science and
Faith.)
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)

The Minority Report claims science is atheistic

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.” [My emphasis]
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, 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.

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” 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.

  
Received on Fri May 13 00:24:39 2005