On Wednesday, November
29, 2000, a letter of mine was published in the Pratt
Tribune commenting on anti-evolution science standards that
had recently been adopted by the local school
Board. The following week,
Intelligent Design Network managing director John Calvert
replied with a letter of his own. Here is my reply to Mr.
Calvert. from Jack Krebs Part
1: A short reply sent
to the Pratt Tribune. Part
2: A longer reply to
the issues concerning the philosophy of naturalism, the
nature of science, and the alleged "censorship" of
information about "intelligent design." Last week, John Calvert of the
Intelligent Design Network responded to a previous letter of
mine by saying that he and I agree "that Pratt can be
likened to an outpost under siege in a culture war," and
then went on to call Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) a
"ruthless outfit" and identify us with the philosophy and
tactics of Nazi Germany. These charges cannot go
unanswered. My letter said nothing about a
"culture war." Both the phrase "culture war" and the
accompanying military metaphors are Calvert's alone. There
is a political conflict going on in Pratt, no doubt. KCFS
and the ID Network have been active in this conflict
throughout the state. Such activity is one of the rights and
responsibilities of democracy. That does not make this a
"culture war", and I don't agree with him that we are in
one. I also find it ironic that Calvert
accuses me of using "scare tactics", and yet he effectively
calls us Nazis and sprinkles his letter with images of war.
This is offensive, and, even more than his "culture war"
statement, exaggerates the nature of the conflict and adds
an aura of potential violence where none is remotely
possible. KCFS is a non-profit educational
organization whose members are educators, scientists, and
citizens from many different occupations. We support
teaching mainstream science in schools. We also support and
encourage constructive dialog on all the related issues in
education, science, and religion. Despite the tensions and
disagreements this has brought, society will ultimately
benefit from this discussion. But we at KCFS are not Nazis, and
we are not at war with anyone. To call us such is purposely
divisive, and is meant to heighten emotional reaction rather
than reasoned response. This type of rhetoric does not
encourage constructive dialog, and has no place in civil
discourse. Naturalism The key issue of concern to
Calvert is philosophical naturalism. Calvert defines Naturalism as "the
belief that all phenomena result only from the laws of
chemistry and physics and that teleological or design
explanations are not valid." Note that he consistently
capitalizes "Naturalism" to emphasize that it is
philosophical naturalism he is talking about - the belief
that the physical world is all there is, and that no moral,
spiritual, or supernatural reality exists. He then
identifies Naturalism with "a Nazi regime that used the
philosophy to justify a eugenics program of terrifying
proportions." Without any moral or spiritual foundation,
philosophical Naturalists are for Calvert like Nazis,
capable of any type of behavior without
restraint. Calvert asserts that "the use of
Naturalism by the science establishment and the KCFS is
acknowledged by Mr. Krebs in his letter when he says that
'.... science...limits itself to NATURAL explanations for
natural phenomena.' (emphasis added)." Calvert is wrong that KCFS is
endorsing the philosophical Naturalism that he abhors. This
equivalence of Naturalism with science is a mistake that
Calvert persists in making. Let me explain. The sentence Calvert quotes is
similar to one from the 5th draft of the state science
standards - the draft whose alteration and subsequent
adoption set off more than a year of intense discussion in
Kansas. In fact, the word "natural" which Calvert emphasized
was changed by the Board to "logical," in part under the
influence of Calvert's group, in order to open the door for
supernatural explanations to be considered as science.
However, the new Board elected this fall will undoubtedly
change the sentence back to its original form: "Science is
the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what
we see in the world around us." Notice the differences between the
definition of Naturalism and the definition of science.
Philosophical Naturalism is the
belief that all phenomena must be explained by natural
causes, because the physical world is all there is.
Science, however is defined as the
activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe
in the world around us. Science purposely limits
itself to looking for natural explanations for
observable phenomena in the physical world. Science does not
attempt to offer spiritual or theological explanations for
such phenomena, nor does it attempt to explain other types
of phenomena such as moral, aesthetic, or spiritual
experience. These fall outside the realm of science.
Nowhere in the definition of
science is there a commitment to the belief that what
science studies is all that exists, or that the methods of
science are the only valid human ways of seeking knowledge.
Science is not the equivalent of Naturalism. This is a clearcut distinction
that Calvert refuses to acknowledge. A personal
statement Let me be somewhat personal about
this. I am a person who whole-heartedly
supports the scientific enterprise and the knowledge that
arises from it. I am also not a philosophical Naturalist
(and neither are the vast majority of KCFS members and other
supporters of science that I know.) I believe that there are
moral and spiritual dimensions to our life that are separate
from anything science can address. Science purposely limits itself to
a certain type of investigation of only part of the world -
that which "we observe in the world around us." I accept
this limitation of science. I also believe that other types
of investigations and other types of knowledge are available
to me. Supporting science in its traditional limited role of
investigating natural causes is not the same as believing in
or supporting philosophical Naturalism. For Calvert to confuse these two -
Naturalism and science as defined above - is therefore not
only of theoretical interest. It is a personal affront to my
religious beliefs, and an affront to every person who
accepts science and also understands that science is not all
there is of value in the world. Calvert's position promotes the
"culture war" he wants to exist because he insists on
dividing people into two groups - those who support science
versus those who believe in our moral and spiritual nature.
Such a dichotomy is, in my opinion, totally unjustified.
Calvert may wish to drive a wedge
between people so they will feel like they are at war with
each other. I don't. I wish to support people in their quest
for knowledge and understanding of all types. Any one who
knows me as a teacher knows that every day, in countless
ways, I am working to help young people grow in intellect,
in responsibility, and in self-understanding. I teach
character and moral behavior continuously. I do all of this
in part because of my care and committment for their human
spirit, and as part of my contibution to society. To claim
that the scientific enterprise is fundamentally antithetical
to the beliefs that motivate these efforts is flat-out
wrong. What is this all really
about? So why is the nature of science
worth defending? What are we really arguing about?
Calvert claims that "the science
establishment's use of Naturalism is designed specifically
to impede the progress of design theory by refusing to give
any objective consideration to a growing mountain of
evidence developed by credentialed and highly respected
scientists." There are four things wrong with
this claim: 1) Science doesn't "use
Naturalism", as explained above. 2) Modern science, with its self
imposed limitation of looking for natural explanations,
began 400 years ago, starting with Galileo. It was
"designed" to free investigation of the physical world from
the armchair speculations of Scholastic philosophy. It has
proven to be a tremendously successful enterprise. It
continues to produce new knowledge, and despite the
assertions of the ID crowd, has not hit any dead ends yet.
For Calvert to claim that people are now defending this
common definition of science "specifically to impede the
progress of design theory" shows a lack of historical
perspective about the importance of the ID
movement. 3) There is not a growing mountain
of evidence for design theory. In fact, there isn't even any
well-articulated hypothesis of what design theory claims,
other than stating that the evolution of life couldn't have
happened naturally and therefore must have been designed in
some unknown way by some unknown designer. The designer is
God for virtually all the main proponents of ID, and the
mechanisms by which God implements his design are
unknowable. There are no published papers, other then
philosophical ones in the popular press, that describe ID in
relation to scientific research, and there are no research
results which support the ID hypothesis. 4) The "credentialed and highly
respected scientists" to which Calvert refers are almost all
members of the Discovery Institute, a privately-funded
conservative think-tank in Seattle. They write books and
give conferences, to which they invite themselves and their
friends to be the speakers, and then claim to be a "growing
movement." They have the publicly stated goal of
"overthrowing materialism" and correcting its "devastating
cultural consequences," and a well-developed strategy called
the Wedge for creating public support for their goals. They
want to "renew science and culture" by merging religious
thought into all branches of public life. Their goal is to
start with science, and especially evolution, and then
expand their conceptions of God-given design into law,
education, and government. Calvert writes, "The issue of
Naturalism is not a scientific issue. It is a philosophical
one that has major legal, logical, cultural and scientific
consequences." Since he is battling "Naturalism," and what
he sees as its negative cultural consequences, he is
waging a culture war. The ID Network, the Discovery
Institute, and other ID proponents mistakenly believe that
atheistic naturalism now dominates our world, and that
science is its foundation. "Intelligent design" as an
alternative to the theory of evolution is the sharp edge of
the Wedge that is meant to separate "us from them." Their
goal is to transform first science, and then society, to
reflect their theistic views. Many would agree that society
would benefit from a renewal of concern about moral and
spiritual matters. The ID proponents have a right to call
for a theistic renewal of culture. However, they ought to be
clear about that and be arguing for such on its own merits,
not trying to use science as the means to objectively
validate their cause. Science is not the culprit, and in
science we will not find the cure. The "censorship"
issue Calvert has this conspiratorial
picture of the scientific establishment, and continually
claims that it is "censoring" evidence and arguments which
might establish that evolution is wrong and ID is right. In
reality, the world of scientific knowledge is open to all
who wish to attempt to add to it. Part of the power of the
processes by which scientific knowledge grows is that ideas
must prove themselves - they must have something to offer
and they must be convincing enough to make their way into
the mainstream body of knowledge. ID ideas have made no such
progress because in fact no substantial, testable hypotheses
have been offered, much less supported by data. The
rejection of bad ideas is not censorship. There are all
sorts of claims in many fields, from physics to medicine to
biology, that are offered and rejected. This is how science
proceeds. Calvert agrees that ID is trying
to make an "end-run" around these normal channels when he
writes, "Much of the evidence critical of Darwinism is
having to be published in non peer reviewed journals because
peer reviewed journals will not accept design explanations
that are outlawed by naturalistic philosophy of the science
establishment. The "end run" is being made because the
"normal way" through the process has been blocked."
Design explanations are not
"outlawed." Design explanations are rejected because they
don't contribute to scientific knowledge. At this point, no
scientific papers (as opposed to works in the popular press)
have even been produced which articulate a portion of the ID
hypothesis and present or propose research based on ID. The
work is just not there. Conclusion Yes, there are common
understandings of what is and is not science. These
understandings are not a conspiratorial wall defending
atheistic naturalism from all who believe that the world has
moral or spiritual significance. These understandings are
instead the product of 400 years of productive work, where
people have found it useful, both for science and for
religion, to separate the enterprise of investigating
natural causes in the world from other ways and other topics
of knowledge. The ID movement wants to change
the definition of science in order to add philosophical and
religious ideas to it. Separating these from natural
investigations was the liberating idea of Galileo's time.
The ID movement has the right to call for a return to a time
when the study of the natural world was entangled with
beliefs and their ultimate moral and spiritual nature if
they wish, but they don't have the right to call it
"censorship" if people don't agree with them. Calvert says the real enemy is
philosophical naturalism, and that science is its standard
bearer. I say that Calvert is wrong about this. First, few
people are actually philosophical naturalists, and
philosophical naturalism is not the cause of the world's
social ailments. Second, science correctly limits itself to
investigating natural causes without addressing issues of
meaning and value. Countless people integrate their
understanding of the physical world into their larger belief
system, and many find their sense of religious meaning
enhanced tremendously by their understanding of the natural
world. There are genuine scientific and
religious issues in all of this. The adult scientific
community is the proper place to address the scientific
issues. The science community has good reason to support the
continued use of common understandings about what
constitutes science. The ID movement has the right to
question those, but it is not "censorship" if people aren't
convinced by their arguments. The religious community also
has a right and a responsibility to address the moral and
spiritual state of our world, to understand what science
says about the physical world, and to reflect upon how to
integrate that understanding with our religious
beliefs. Neither of these projects require
an "end-run" around normal channels, and they certainly
don't require using the school system, science curricula,
and local school Boards to advance. They are important and
legitimate topics for society to deal with. However it is
wrong to disguise religious beliefs and the desire for
cultural change as being primarily scientific matters, it is
wrong to try to accomplish this by foisting a false charge
of philosophical Naturalism on science, and it is wrong to
try to divide us into two warring camps based on our
positions about the nature of science. Jack Krebs Edited December 13,
2000
Letter in the Pratt Tribune, Wednesday, December 6,
2000
Kansas Citizens for Science
December 11, 2000
Lawrence, KS
December 11, 2000