Discussions seem to always boil down to the definitions of the terms science and ID. I found the Proposed Revisions to Kansas Science Standards Draft 11 With Explanations (December 10, 2004)
(
http://www.kansasscience2005.com/...evisions_KSstandards.pdf)
I think this excerpt will shed some light on why this is, if I am interpreting the document correctly:
quote:
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.
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.
I feel that, before this controversy can be ultimately resolved, we must examine closely any philosophical baggage mainstream science has accumulated over the years. Naturalism seems like a good place to start, it has had a profound influence over science.
In the branches of science that deal with the origin of life, the influence of naturalism is strongly felt. This is why many people are puzzled that there should be any conflict between science and religion at all. Its not SCIENCE that is in conflict with religion...its the NATURALISM underneath mainstream science that is in conflict with religion. This distinction needs to be brought to the fore-front of the debate.
The relationship between science and the philosophy it is based on seems to me to be similar to the relationship between the every-day, practical workings of a government and the constitution behind it. The philosophy behind science should be open to examination and amendment the same way an ideal government constitution is. No favoritism toward a philosophy should be in science, just as no favoritism toward a religion should be in a government. When I say science here what I mean are those branches that deal with the origin question.
Naturalism serves humanity well...but in the past, where the root of the problem lay, naturalists didn't seem think that science would ever progress to the point where scientists could dare to express a case for intelligent design in scientific terms. This demonstrates a lack of foresight by the naturalists.
Can naturalism be removed from mainstream science just enough to make everyone happy...without destroying science in the process? Of course. Naturalism is not the end all, be all of science. Naturalism is merely the filter through which mainstream science sees reality. It works fine for most branches of science, but not for ones which impact the lives of so many people in such a unique and profound way. A more neutral filter is required in these cases.
Some people say ID is unscientific. If so its because philosophical naturalism influences the definition of science too much. Certain branches of science (not all of them) need to be adjusted to accomodate human endeavors such as ID.
For falsifiable, exact sciences the naturalism approach seems to work fine. But for branches of science which deal with the question of origins (IOW which cant be falsified) it is NOT fine. A more neutral approach is required.
We need a new category of science...Origin-related and non-Origin related. Origin-related sciences are not falsifiable...so they are open to different philosophical interpretations. Efforts to support different interpretations should NOT be ruled out(IOW labeled unscientific)in these specific branches.
How can humanity learn if, when we demand that science attempt to falsify itself, it replies, "We can't. It would be unscientific."
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 01:46 PM