Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'

A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.

Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.

"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."

"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.

AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.

"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."

In the interest of (a) better communications and (b) to support the objective of the intelligent design movement which is to remove the presupposition of methodological naturalism from science and (c) to illustrate that the objective is not peculiar to the ID movement:

Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism is simply the idea that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved. “Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2001 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

That might sound innocent enough. And by a strict reading, it is. But the metaphysical naturalists take it as proof of their “faith” as follows:

Metaphysical Naturalism

Essentially, metaphysical naturalism denies the existence of any causation which is not “natural”. We might characterize it as a belief system based on physical causality. But to let the metaphysical naturalists speak for themselves (emphasis mine):

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.

As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation. For instance, if a disease is caused by microbes, we can learn more about how microbes interact with the body and how the immune system can be activated to destroy them, or how the transmission of microbes can be contained. But if a disease is caused by demons, we can learn nothing more about how to stop it, as demons are said to be supernatural beings unconstrained by the laws of nature (unlike natural causes).

In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue below (e.g., Augustine, Forrest, and Oppy), methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true. Keith Augustine, “Naturalism”

Many of us - both those who support the ID hypothesis and those who do not - notice the circular reasoning of metaphysical naturalism which claims authenticity because of the success of science using methodological naturalism, i.e.“No wonder, nature is the only place science looks for answers!”

In coining the term “scientific materialism”, Alfred Whitehead makes the point why that reasoning is an illusion (emphasis mine).

Scientific Materialism

As Whitehead himself explains, his "philosophy of organism is the inversion of Kant's philosophy … For Kant, the world emerges from the subject; for the philosophy of organism, the subject emerges from the world."

Significantly, this view runs counter to more traditional views associated with material substance: "There persists," says Whitehead, "[a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."

The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. According to Whitehead, recognition that the world is organic rather than materialistic is therefore essential, and this change in viewpoint can result as easily from attempts to understand modern physics as from attempts to understand human psychology and teleology. Says Whitehead, "Mathematical physics presumes in the first place an electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time. The laws which condition this field are nothing else than the conditions observed by the general activity of the flux of the world, as it individualises itself in the events."

The end result is that Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process." Irvine, A. D., "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Study more epistemology and then maybe some psychology

I was actually requesting some enlightenment from you on the meaning of your posting: the 'directly' was implied by the syntax of your sentence, and I was asking for clarification. Your original post:

I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon. OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term. But folks sure bandy it about pretty loosely.

Let me set out my attempt to parse your sense here--which may well be wrong, which is why I asked for you to untangle it for me:

1. The term 'supernatural' is too ambiguous to be useful. To illustrate:

2. If event 'x' is a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception) but the [cause or nature] of 'x' cannot be explained by current knowledge, it is assigned the term 'supernatural.'

3. On the other hand, if 'x' occurs but is not 'observable' by currently available means of observation, then is not a 'phenomenon' (an object of perception).

Statement 3 is a meaningless tautology--which I assumed was not your intention. And it also implies the absurdity of 'unobservable phenomena,' which is why the phrase was set out in single quote marks.

With respect, you have misread my request for clarification, and I would still be interested to grasp your sense--unless you have determined that I am too 'sophmoric' for your instruction here.

The next step would be to say we understand everything using scientific scrutiny.

The closest to that claim might be a belief(!) that all knowledge is obtainable exclusively by science-- or perhaps only the findings of science qualify, by definition, as knowledge. Neither of these is among my own beliefs.

Is that the road you want to go down on? Do you like quantuum mechanics as a total solution forever?

I don't agree with your premise here; but in any event, if one choose to seek knowledge, one cannot prejudge what one finds. And I do not see how we can choose to only 'know' that which we find agreeable

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Definitely! That's why it's important to talk to the One who gave you the gift of reason and endowed you with certain unalienable Rights.

Being conservatives, we all agree that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights. But what if we were endowed by a natural process instead of a supernatural person? Does that mean we weren't really endowed with rights after all? No! We have these rights because human beings require these rights in order to survive & thrive.

(Presumably) all physicists agree that matter is made up of atoms, which are themselves made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, which are themselves made up of different combinations of quarks. This agreement is universal, even though there is great ferment & disagreement over what exactly quarks are themselves made of.

Likewise, the necessity of recognizing our individual rights comes from the fact that we are human beings, and an understanding of what it means to be human. How we came to be human instead of just another chimp, is a different question entirely, and wholly irrelevant to the more vital questions of what constitutes a proper moral framework, whether or not the best moral code is universally applicable to all people of all cultures, etc.

How can something as well-known and so controversial as consciousness just suddenly appear in the universe?

Hello RightWhale! I am beginning to think that consciousness is not a scientific question for the reason that it is "non-phenomenal," or an instance of "nonexistent reality." Meaning that consciousness is not a "thingly thing" or denizen of 4-dimensional spacetime that can be intended as an object in subjective consciousness, and thus made accessible to the instrumental reason, or the scientific method more generally. Rather, it is something in which we participate: IOW, we think out of, or "with the help of," consciousness; i.e., it is the matrix in which any thought process occurs, whether directed to the phenomena of the objective external world or to self-reflective, subjective processes of thought (e.g., abstract problem-solving, meditation, contemplation).

Phenomenal, existent reality is that which is studied by the natural sciences. This does not mean, however, that non-phenomenal or non-existent reality is an illusion -- just that the scientific method can gain no traction on such areas of human experience, for they do not fit the scientific method. Yet there would be no scientific method without mind, and there can be no mind without consciousness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.