Re: The Terms of Debate in Kansas

Randy, I think the "without possibility" in the first sentence (The philosophy of mainstream science that nature has its own method, without the possibility of supernatural influence on, say, how DNA is sequenced) is too restrictive, as is seems to imply no so much that something "supernatural" does not exist as that such cannot have any impact on the natural world. It seems like this leaves one with a practical deism at best.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:20 PM
  Subject: The Terms of Debate in Kansas

  Printed in the NYTimes today: they got some of the definitions right. I hadn't thought of methodological naturalism in this way. Is this how you-all would define it? I had always considered the method in question was that of scientists, not of nature.

  Randy

    
  The Terms of Debate in Kansas
  By JODI WILGOREN
  Published: May 15, 2005
  Hearings on how Kansas schoolchildren should be taught about the origins of life - the fourth and final session concluded on Thursday in Topeka - quickly morphed from science lesson to vocabulary quiz. As the battle over evolution moves beyond Darwin vs. Adam, semantics seems almost as important as studies of cell composition.

  Most of the two dozen scientists, teachers and lawyers who have urged amending the state's science standards to include critiques of the theory of evolution support the movement known as intelligent design, which posits that the universe's mysteries and complexities are best understood as evidence of an intelligent designer (generally seen as a longer name for God).

  It is a debate in which the two sides differ on many basic terms, including the definition of science itself. Mainstream scientists define their work as seeking natural explanations for the world around us, while their critics define science as a systematic method of continuing investigation, using various tools to lead to what they consider more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

  Methodological Naturalism

  The philosophy of mainstream science that nature has its own method, without the possibility of supernatural influence on, say, how DNA is sequenced. William S. Harris, a chemist who helped write Kansas' alternative science standards questioning evolution, said that methodological naturalism puts blinders on the search for truth.

  Irreducibly Complex

  Introduced in Michael Behe's 1996 book, "Darwin's Black Box," which describes the intelligent design concept, this phrase refers to a system in which the removal of one part prevents the system from performing its basic function. Such a system could not evolve over time, since it cannot exist without every part, and thus would undercut the concept of natural selection.

  Common Descent

  The idea that, beyond the biblical notion that humanity descends from Adam and Eve, all of life's species have the same origin. Pedro Irigonegaray, the lawyer at the Topeka hearings arguing for the teaching of evolution, pressed several witnesses on whether they believe in prehominids as the ancestral line to homo sapiens. One response from an opponent of teaching evolution: Extremely unlikely.

  Wedge Strategy

  Conceived by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, this reflects the change in strategy by critics of evolution to avoid mentioning hot-button terms like creationism and instead emphasizing intelligent design, with its logical-sounding notion that complexity unexplainable by natural laws should be attributed to some other, possibly divine, force. The aim is to create a wedge to change school curriculums to teach the controversy over Darwin's theories. (The other side said there is no scientific controversy.)

  Microevolution

  The idea that species evolve over time is almost universally accepted.

  Macroevolution

  The notion that one species can evolve into another, a view that is rejected by creationists and some intelligent designers.

  Biological Evolution

  In their competing proposals for Kansas' standards, the two sides differ on how this should be defined for high school students. Mainstream scientists say it is an "explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors," while the dissenters call for eight more paragraphs saying biological evolution "postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal."

  Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, took issue even with his comrades' use of biological evolution, preferring "Darwinian evolution." When Mr. Irigonegaray, the lawyer arguing for teaching evolution, pointed out that Darwin predates the discovery of genetics, Mr. Wells offered "neo-Darwinist evolution" instead.
Received on Mon May 16 19:00:13 2005