Re: Kansas Closing arguments

My understanding of the position of Dawkins & Co. is that they base their atheistic, naturalistic and materialistic philosophical world-view upon the empirical science that has established the validity of an evolutionary understanding of the universe and of life on earth; and they claim that the former follows necessarily from the latter. It seems to me that Johnson & Co. have reversed this: they base their rejection of the evolutionary paradigm on the concept of science itself that it is in their eyes atheistic, naturalistic and materialistic; and they argue that the former follows necessarily from the latter..

I think they want to convince the general public of their definition of science so that they will get a favorable hearing for their conception of a "theistic science" (against an "atheistic science"). However, they need to come up with something more than a phrase. Does anyone know if any of the ID people have offered a description of a "research program" for their "theistic science"? (I know that Dembski has said that ID is a "research program," but I have yet to see a description of this program). Keith, did any of the ID crew offer one at the show trial?

Bob Schneider

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Miller
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:12 AM
  Subject: 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 Mon May 16 17:34:08 2005