Transcript Using the criteria of the Dover decision, would the Kansas Science Standards be declared unconstitutional? Jack Krebs    President: Kansas Citizens for Science Member: Kansas State.

Using the criteria of the Dover decision,
would the Kansas Science Standards
be declared unconstitutional?
Jack Krebs



President: Kansas Citizens for Science
Member: Kansas State Science Standards Writing Committee
Assistant to Pedro Irigonegaray at the Kansas BOE “Science
Hearings”, May 2005
A very short history, and the main players
•
In 1999, the insertion of creationism into the Kansas science standards
was led by state Board member Steve Abrams and a group of Kansas
and Missouri young-earth creationists (Biblical literalists).
•
The 2005 revisions has also been led by Steve Abrams, now Board
chairperson, as well as John Calvert and Bill Harris, directors of the
Intelligent Design network.
Timeline
•
June 2004 - Science standards committee is appointed, with Intelligent
Design (ID) supporters chosen by creationist Board members
•
December 2004 - The ID Minority submits Proposed Revisions
•
March 2005 - The writing committee submits our good standards Draft 2b
•
May 2005 - The state Board holds special “Science Hearings” for
Intelligent Design advocates
•
November 2005 - The current Board standards are adopted - Draft 3
Is Kansas like Dover? Or not?
The Intelligent Design creationists say “No.”
They say the standards don’t mention Intelligent Design or religion.
They just support “teaching the controversy” by teaching the “strengths
and weaknesses of evolution.”
“Board Chairman Steve Abrams said the [Dover] ruling would have no
effect on Kansas because the state’s new science standards don’t
mention intelligent design.” (Lawrence Journal World
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/22/fueling_controversy/?editorials)
John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute, in response to
a claim that the board of education voted that students should be
exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design, wrote:
“Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards
encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin's
theory. They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin's
theory such as intelligent design.” (Discovery Institute
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/did_new_york_times_report_the.html)
Is Kansas like Dover? Or not?
My answer is “Yes.”
The Intelligent Design movement thinks they are “doing it right” in
Kansas (unlike Dover), but I think they are wrong.
Using the criteria applied in the Dover decisions, I believe the
Kansas Science Standards would be declared unconstitutional.
(But IANAL – I am not a lawyer.)
What counts?
Before we look at the details, though, we need to ask this question:
What counts in making this judgment?
What evidence do we look at?
Just the actual words written in the standards?
Or the whole context?
What counts?
The whole context counts.
“The [endorsement] test consists of the reviewing court
determining what message a challenged governmental policy
or enactment conveys to a reasonable, objective observer
who knows the policy's language, origins, and legislative
history, as well as the history of the community and the
broader social and historical context in which the policy
arose.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, page 15)
What criteria from Dover applies to the Kansas standards?
The Board’s standards
• Change the definition of science to allow supernatural explanations;
Reference
• Include scientifically discredited arguments against evolution that are
found only in the creationist literature; Reference
• Advance the “contrived dualism” that arguments against evolution are
arguments for creationism. Reference
Advocates for the Board’s standards have shown their religious
motivations by
• Clearly stating that their religious beliefs are antithetical to evolution;
• Clearly rejecting and even denouncing the religious beliefs of
Christians (and other theists) who accept the validity of mainstream
science and evolutionary theory.
Now let’s look at some of the evidence
Four main points:
1.
The standards do expect teachers to teach “Intelligent Design”
2.
The standards change the definition of science to include
supernatural causation. The rationale for this is that science
supports atheism, and therefore “design” must be included in order
to provide balance by supporting theism. Note this is fundamentally
an argument about religious belief.
3.
The ID advocates reject and denounce the religious beliefs of
Christians and other theists who accept evolution.
4.
The ID advocates reject common descent - the conclusion that
species, and especially humans, have evolved from other species.
They are “special creationists.”
Point 1: Does the Board intend for students to learn about
“Intelligent Design”?
The Board’s Rationale statement in the Introduction says,
“We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include
Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many
evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an
illusion…. These standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this
scientific disagreement.”” (BOE standards, p. ii)
Elsewhere, the ID Minority calls this illusion of design a “core claim of
evolutionary theory.” (Proposed Revisions, Draft 2, page 4)
However, the Rationale also says that, in respect to biological evolution, students
are
• To understand the “full range of scientific views that exist on the topic,”
• To study “scientific criticisms of [evolutionary] theory”, and
• To study “different and opposing evidence.” Full statement
So what conclusion can we draw from these statements?
Conclusion: The Board’s Rationale statement
does say to “teach Intelligent Design”
Why? Note that
• Intelligent Design is the only “scientific” disagreement mentioned, and
• Intelligent Design is defined negatively as a disagreement with a “core claim of
evolutionary theory”, and
• Students are to learn the “scientific criticisms of the theory.”
The obvious conclusion is that
• Students are to learn about Intelligent Design, because Intelligent Design is
merely the argument that core claims of evolutionary theory are wrong.
• Thus, by learning the so- called“scientific criticisms of the theory” and
evidence against evolution, students will learn that Intelligent Design is true.
This is the “contrived dualism” at work. There is no scientific theory of ID
or creationism. The only proposed evidence for ID is evidence against
evolution. Teaching the so-called weaknesses of evolutionary theory is
teaching Intelligent Design.
The Board Rationale explicitly supports the teaching of Intelligent Design,
because arguments for Intelligent Design are nothing more than
arguments that evolutionary theory is wrong.
Point 2: The Board’s standards change the definition of science
to include supernatural causation.
What did they do?, and why did they do it?
The writing committee standards describe the nature of science by stating,
“Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural
explanations for what we observe in the world around us….” (Draft 2b, page x.)
Full statement
The Board changed this to
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that …[leads]
to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. (Board standards, page ix)
Full statement
The Board also made the this addition (in bold) to the Mission Statement:
Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students
as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and
reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and
international communities. (Board standards, page iii)
Both these changes appear innocuous on the surface. But let’s look at the
rationale the ID Minority offered for making these changes.
The ID Minority’s arguments about the nature of science
The ID Minority’s written arguments are lengthy, wordy, contorted and repetitive.
Here is a summary of key points:
• Science is atheistic because it seeks only naturalistic
explanations
• The definition of science must be changed to allow “design”(aka
“supernatural causation”) to be part of science
• Teaching “evolution only” in public schools is indoctrination in
“state-sponsored” materialism (hence atheism), and is thus
constitutionally problematic.
• Students, by being taught evolution, will be lead to the
conclusion that they are merely meaningless accidents without
purpose.
Summary of ID Minority argument – 1
Science is atheistic because it seeks only naturalistic explanations
“Methodological naturalism effectively converts evolution into an
irrefutable Ideology …. Naturalism is the fundamental tenet of
non-theistic religions and belief systems like Secular Humanism,
atheism, agnosticism and scientism.” (Minority Proposals)
Summary of ID Minority argument – 2
The definition of science must be changed to allow “design”(aka
“supernatural causation”) to be part of science
“The principle change here is to replace a naturalistic definition of science with
a traditional definition. The current definition of science is intended to reflect a
concept called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that
cause-and-effect laws … are adequate to account for all phenomena and that
teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid.” (Minority Proposals)
Calvert to Bill Harris: Q. Does an inference of design entail a belief in a
supernatural?
Bill Harris: Of course not. Everything you see in this room was designed by an
intelligence for a purpose, that's not supernatural. We're talking about-- where
supernatural comes into it is when we're talking about prehistory, origins,
where did we come from.” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo1.html#p137)
“Nontheistic religions such as secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism and
scientism are quite happy with science that seeks to remove any
‘supernatural’ influence from its explanations. So the right question is not "Is
there a conflict between science and religion?" Rather, the question is more
properly framed as ‘Is there a conflict between 'science' and theistic
religions?’” (John Calvert, http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/11044336.htm)
Summary of ID Minority argument – 3
Teaching “evolution only” in public schools is indoctrination in
“state-sponsored” materialism (hence atheism), and is thus
constitutionally problematic.
Further, an indoctrination in the philosophy of Naturalism would seem to
offend Constitutional principles. It causes the State of Kansas to take sides
in a debate that unavoidably impacts both theistic and non-theistic religious
beliefs. The antidote to all of these scientific and Constitutional problems is to
present additional relevant scientific information regarding origins, evidence
that tends to support and refute the competing claims, so that origins
science is presented objectively and without religious or naturalistic bias and
assumption. This will reflect the best of science while also putting the State in
a position of Constitutional neutrality rather than that of an advocate for
Naturalism, a philosophy key to non-theistic belief systems.” (Minority Proposals)
Title of the News Release from John Calvert and the Intelligent Design network
in response to the Dover decision:
Dover Court Establishes State Materialism
(www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Press%20Release%20122105%20final%20.pdf
Summary of ID Minority argument – 4
Students, by being taught evolution, will be lead to the conclusion
that there are merely meaningless accidents without purpose.
“It is reasonable to expect that this viewpoint discrimination will
necessarily have the effect of causing students to reach an
uninformed, but “reasoned” decision that they, and all other human
beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that
lack intrinsic purpose.” (Minority Proposals)
“This can be reasonably expected to lead one to believe in the
naturalistic philosophy that life and its diversity is the result of an
unguided, purposeless natural process.” (Minority Proposals)
Summary of ID Minority argument – 5
The target of the ID proposals is the philosophy of
naturalism (or materialism).
ID advocates incorrectly believe that science in
general, and the theory of evolution in particular, is
responsible for fostering materialism in our culture.
Thus they are using an attack on science, and on
the public education system, as the vehicle to fight
their religious and cultural battle.
This is something that all citizens interested in
science, religion, and/or education should resist.
Point 3: The ID advocates reject and denounce the religious beliefs of
Christians and other theists who accept evolution.
This is a critical point
Millions who believe in God (theists) accept that science is limited to seeking
natural causes, and accept the theory of evolution.
Such believers (commonly called theistic evolutionists) believe that God acts
through natural processes in ways that are beyond our limited understanding.
However, the core argument of the ID Minority (as shown) is that if one accepts
the naturalistic foundation of science, one is inherently a materialist and an atheist.
But the existence of the theistic evolutionists shows that this is not true. There are
religious perspectives which don’t accept the ID dichotomy.
So how does the ID community respond to the theistic evolutionists?
The ID advocates lumps the theistic evolutionists in with the
secular humanist, atheists and agnostics.
Such people cannot be “true Christians.”
Typical comments from the ID community about theistic evolutionists
John Calvert: “Evolution demolishes any rational basis for theistic belief.”
(http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/04/attorneys_Id_case_spread_message/?city_local)
Steve Abrams: “If you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide
which one you believe. That’s the bottom line.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/24/official_its_evolution_or_bible_not_both/?evolution
ID witness Angus Menuge: “The mere fact that you have somebody who holds two
beliefs, A and B, does not show that they are logically consistent, so it might be
some of these people [theistic evolutionists] are confused.”
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html#p3780)
Phillip Johnson, founder of the ID movement: “Liberal Christians are worse than
atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion.”
(Speech at the University of Kansas, April 2000.}
Steve Abrams: They [theistic evolutionists] usually take the tact that God created
something and then left it to evolution to work it all out. If these people are
talking about the God of the Bible, then they do not understand what is
written in the Bible, or they do not understand the philosophy of
evolutionary theory. (A Defense of the New Science Standards (2000), Southwestern College
Collegian)
Excerpts from a letter from John Calvert to the state Board
“There are many reasons why scientists who are theists do not not publicly deny or take
issue with evolution. …
(c) because their reputation, job performance and job security depends on their allegiance
to the theory, …
(e) because they can easily avoid social and political controversy by thinking of evolution
as a “tool” used by God to do his work without truly understanding the nature of the
evolutionary mechanism and its logical conflicts with their beliefs.
Of all these reasons, concern about reputation and job security is probably the most significant
reason for not voicing any doubts about Darwin. Indeed a theist can actually win friends and
influence people in high places by simply toeing the line.
(http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Reply%20to%20Response.pdf) Full statement
Conclusion for Point 3
The ID advocates specifically and clearly reject the theological
beliefs of those Christians who also accept evolution.
• If they accepted the theistic evolutionists’ beliefs,
• then they would have to abandon their argument that evolution is
incompatible with theism, and
• that would negate the science = atheism argument that is the
heart of their argument for including “design” (supernatural
causation.)
Note what the Dover decision said about this point:
“Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a
bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is
that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a
supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial,
Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution …in no
way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine
creator.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover)
Point 4: The key Issue is Common Descent
Common descent, the conclusion that all living things are biologically
related by common ancestry back to the beginning of life, is fundamental
to evolutionary theory.
The ID advocates deny common descent. They do not believe that
species have evolved into other species.
From the Board standards: “The view that living things in all the major
kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor
(described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in
recent years by….” They continue by listing, again, a number of
scientifically discredited creationist arguments. (Board standards, page 75)
Steve Abrams: “We have tried to further define evolution. We want to
differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome
that permits it to change with the environment as being different
from changing to some other creature. In our science curriculum
standards, we called this microevolution and macroevolution -- changes
within kinds and changing from one kind to another.
(http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/13166766.htm)
This is the standard creationist view: “microevolution” can be observed
and is true, but “macro-evolution” is not true.
The ID advocates are “special creationists”
At the May “Science Hearings”, Pedro Irigonegaray asked most of the
witnesses whether they accepted common descent, and especially for
human beings.
With only two exceptions, those witnesses said they did not accept
common descent. When asked how they thought humans came into
existence, they said variously some version of “design” or “I don’t know.”
One witness, however, was more candid, I think, and said he believed
special creation was the cause.
This is the central issue: those responsible for the changes to the
Kansas standards are indeed special creationists, both of the old
and young-earth variety.
The believe that God had created life, and especially human beings,
through supernatural means.
They reject as theological incorrect the common religious belief that God
has created through the process of evolution
They reject all views that accept common descent. They reject the core
conclusion of evolutionary theory on religious grounds.
There are other significant issues that I include for the record
The following discredited creationist arguments have been inserted into
the Board standards as “weaknesses” of evolution.
• The historical sciences (“origins science”) are inherently inferior
because we can’t directly observe the past.
• Certain key events, such as the origin of life itself, the DNA code, and
the “Cambrian explosion” cannot possibly be explained by natural
causes.
• Natural causes cannot produce “irreducibly complex structures.”
The fact that evolution involves random mutations means that evolution
is a metaphysically unguided and purposeless process.
The ID advocates have made false educational claims.
• Science teachers teach evolution dogmatically as “fact”, not theory.
• Students are not allowed to raise questions about evolution.
• In general, students are not taught to critically analyze what they are
learn.
Summary and Conclusion
The core argument of the ID Minority is that science is in conflict with
theistic belief.
But really science is only in conflict with their version of theistic belief
– the belief that supernatural special creation has been the cause of
the origins of the diversity of life, and specifically the origin of
humankind.
Therefore, the Kansas science standards,
• in changing the definition of science to include supernatural
causation, and
• in inserting numerous scientifically discredited arguments against
aspects of evolutionary theory,
are advancing one religious belief over many other religious beliefs,
including mainstream Christianity, without any secular purpose.
For this core reason, as well as for many others, I believe the evidence
supports the conclusion that the Kansas science standards would be
declared unconstitutional if held to the same scrutiny and criteria as the
Dover decision.
Thank you very much for listening.
Please turn in your question cards for the panel.
Enjoy a break and we’ll see you in 15 minutes.
For more information, see
Kansas Citizens for Science: www.kcfs.org
The National Center for Science Education: www.ncseweb.org
This slide is left intentionally blank to separate the
regular slides from the reference slides.
Reference: Supernatural causation cannot be included in science
“It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of
the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow
supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme
Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an
inherently religious concept.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, page 67)
“The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science"
because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which
cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through
empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor
falsifiable.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, page 22)
“ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking
and permitting supernatural causation.” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, page 64)
Reference: Arguments against evolution
“1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching
About ‘Gaps’ and ‘Problems’ in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier
Forms of Creationism.
The history of the ID movement (hereinafter "IDM") and the development of
the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on
alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural
background against which the Dover School Board …”. (Kitzmiller v. Dover, page
18)
This background would be equally applicable to Kansas, if not more
so, given the history of the involvement of Steve Abrams, John
Calvert and others from the Intelligent Design/creationist movement.
Reference: The “contrived dualism” approach of creationism
“The two-model approach of creationists is simply a contrived
dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate
educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the
origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was
either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two
models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that
all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of
evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of
creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence.’
(McLean,529 F. Supp. at 1266 (footnote omitted)(emphasis added).”
(Kitzmiller v. Dover, page 42)
Reference: Board Rationale statement
“Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum
standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern
evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising
scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the
Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of
scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and
the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study
different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science
education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.””
“We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include
Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many
evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an
illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included
many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor
prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.”
(BOE Standards, page ii)
Committee’s description of science: Reference slide 6
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we
observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used
the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological
innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against
the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted
explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature.
Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed
through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and
early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only
natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using
non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.
Hypothesis, law, and theory are frequently misunderstood terms used in science. A
hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to design
experiments and to build more complex inferences and explanations. A law is a
descriptive generalization based on repeated observations. A theory is a wellsubstantiated explanation of the natural world that incorporates observations, inferences,
laws, well-tested hypotheses and experimental findings to explain a specific aspect of the
natural world. Theories drive research because they draw attention to areas where data
or understandings are incomplete, suggesting additional directions for research. (Writing
committee Draft 2b, page x)
Board’s description of science: Reference slide 7
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations,
hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building
to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while
maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are
built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement
about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and
explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses(Board
standards, page ix)
Board rationale for adding “informed”: Reference slide 8
This two-word change [“informed and’ ]perhaps reflects the core of the controversy between
Proponents and Opponents. Opponents seek to significantly limit the amount of scientific
information provided to students about the most fundamental question humanity may address –
What is the origin of life and its diversity? Where do we come from? They would narrow the
scope of information to that which will not contradict the naturalistic claim that life is adequately
explained by chance interactions of matter according to the laws of physics and chemistry. This
philosophy allows only “natural” or mechanistic material causes for the origin and diversity of
life. It requires that evidence and criticisms that challenge Darwinian evolution (the primary
theory that supports the philosophy of Naturalism) not be permitted.
It is reasonable to expect that this viewpoint discrimination will necessarily have the effect of
causing students to reach an uninformed, but “reasoned” decision that they, and all other
human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose.
The proponents do not believe that this is a correct deduction to draw from current science
evidence. For reasons explained elsewhere, we believe that limiting the mix of information not
only does violence to good science, but it will tend to indoctrinate rather than to inform and
educate. Further, an indoctrination in the philosophy of Naturalism would seem to offend
Constitutional principles. It causes the State of Kansas to take sides in a debate that
unavoidably impacts both theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs. The antidote to all of these
scientific and Constitutional problems is to present additional relevant scientific information
regarding origins, evidence that tends to support and refute the competing claims, so that
origins science is presented objectively and without religious or naturalistic bias and
assumption. This will reflect the best of science while also putting the State in a position of
Constitutional neutrality rather than that of an advocate for Naturalism, a philosophy key to
non-theistic belief systems. (Minority Proposals, page 3) (My emphasis.)
Board rationale for changing “natural to “adequate”:
Reference slide 9.1
The principle change here is to replace a naturalistic definition of science with a
traditional definition. The current definition of science is intended to reflect a concept
called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws
(as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that
teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalId. Although called a “method of
science,” the effect of its use is to limit inquiry (and permissible explanations) and thus to
promote the philosophy of Naturalism. In effect, this “method” is actually a doctrine
because its key tenets or “assumptions” are not refutable and are not generally disclosed.
Whether or not intended, the effect of this construct is to cause students to accept as true
its unstated premise. This can be reasonably expected to lead one to believe in the
naturalistic philosophy that life and its diversity is the result of an unguIded, purposeless
natural process. This is both scientifically and Constitutionally problematic.
ｷ
Methodological naturalism is scientifically problematic in origins science
because it violates two key aspects of the scientific method. It philosophically limits both
the formation and testing of competing hypotheses. It limits hypothesis formation by
philosophically ruling out a logical, evIdence-based competitor to the evolutionary
hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least
partially guIded. Criticisms of the naturalistic hypothesis are also disallowed to ensure that
the outlawed competitor does not intrude through the back door. Without any substantive
competitor, evolution cannot be effectively tested or falsified, and is thereby converted into
a dogma, doctrine or Ideology. As such, naturalistic evolution actually ceases to fall within
the realm of science. … (Minority Proposals, portions of page 3-5)
Board rationale for changing “natural to “adequate”:
Reference slide 9.2
In addition to being scientifically problematic, the use of an irrefutable assumption in
origins science may be Constitutionally problematic. During the meeting on October 28,
2004, John Calvert, a lawyer who has studied the constitutional issue for the last five
years, explained why the current definition of science (the one proposed by our
Opponents) is not consistent with the requirement that educational materials be secular,
neutral and non-Ideological. Methodological naturalism effectively converts evolution into
an irrefutable Ideology that is not secular or neutral. Naturalism is the fundamental tenet
of non-theistic religions and belief systems like Secular Humanism, atheism, agnosticism
and scientism.
Proponents believe the most effective way to solve both the scientific and constitutional
problem is to use a traditional definition of science that will encourage thinking “outsIde of
the box” and open up the discussion to multiple scientific viewpoints. This Idea is
reflected in the sentiment of the Congress when it adopted the No-Child Left Behind Act.
We believe that perspective should be included in the Introduction so that school districts
and teachers will understand that they are empowered to address origins science
objectively. (Minority Proposals, portions of page 3-5)
Calvert statement on theistic evolutionists
The claim that: Many scientists who are theists believe in evolution, therefore evolution has no conflict
with religion, is not logically coherent because there are many reasons why scientists who are theists do
publicly deny or take issue with evolution. Based on the testimony at the hearings and numerous
conversations I have had with scientists and biology teachers over the past six years I know that many
theistic scientists who fall into this category do so:
(a) because their religious beliefs are held for completely unrelated to science;
(b) because they have been misinformed about the adequacy of the evidence that supports evolution,
(c) because their reputation, job performance and job security depends on their allegiance to the theory,
(d) because they work in operational or applied science where evolution is generally irrelevant and there
is no reason to question it, and
(e) because they can easily avoid social and political controversy by thinking of evolution as a “tool” used
by God to do his work without truly understanding the nature of the evolutionary mechanism and its
logical conflicts with their the beliefs.
Of all these reasons, concern about reputation and job security is probably the most significant reason
for not voicing any doubts about Darwin. Indeed a theist can actually win friends and influence people in
high places by simply toeing the line. Who wants to wind up like Nancy Bryson or Roger Dehart? Who
desires the kind of verbal abuse that is levied upon anyone who has the courage to voice sincere and
honestly held reservations. (http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Reply%20to%20Response.pdf, page 4)