Objective Origins Science vs. Evolution Only: Objectivity Scores Big Tune in 2002

Twenty years from now, 2002 may appear as the turning point or "D‑Day" in the war against an "Evolution Only" paradigm in public schools. The competitor to Evolution Only is objective origins science. Objectivity is the antithesis of Evolution Only.

Origins science is the science that studies the religiously charged question: "Where do we come from?" Objective origins science, in seeking to answer that question without bias, allows the weight of the relevant evidence to dictate explanation rather than prejudice, presupposition, or preconception. When we go to the ball game we want the umpire behind the plate to just tell us whether the ball is in or out of the strike zone. We don't want him to favor one team or the other by ignoring relevant data or interpreting observed data so that it fits a "desired" explanation.

If current origins science were conducted and taught with the objectivity of a major league umpire, then we could fold our tents and go home. It isn't. According to John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, his brand of science employs a bias when it addresses the big question.

In a recent issue he reluctantly acknowledged that "a central tenet of modern sci­ence is methodological naturalism..." (Rennie, 2002). Method­ological naturalism is an assumption that natural laws and chance are adequate to account for all phenomena. Although a naturalistic assumption may have some utility in experimental sciences, it destroys objectivity in an historical science like origins science.

Scientists like Mr. Rennie really don't ask the question: Where do we come from? That is because methodological naturalism provides the answer before the question is asked. We come solely from unguided and purposeless natural process called evolution. Methodological naturalism assumes that intelligent causes have not operated to produce natural phenomena, even in the face of an enormous volume of contradic­tory evidence.

"Evolution Only" is just another name for methodological naturalism. The key word is "only." With an Evolution Only assumption, the umpire will always call strikes when Evolution is the pitching team and balls when it takes the bat. There really is no need to even play the game. We know the outcome before it starts. Evolution always wins. If a game is played at all, it can only be an intramural sport between two competing concepts of evolution, but not between evolution and an alternative theory of origins like intelligent design ‑ that would not be "Evolution Only."

The year 2002 was a watershed for scientific objectivity in origins science. Evolution Only / methodological naturalism was rejected in two jurisdictions: Ohio and Cobb County Georgia. It was replaced with movements toward more objective origins science curricula. As expected, these victories are serving as beacons for renewed activity around the country.

Progress with Science Standards

In Ohio, Evolution Only/methodological naturalism was defeated by a unanimous decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Board specifically rejected a naturalistic definition of scientific knowledge in favor of one grounded in logic and objectivity. The rejected naturalistic definition stated that "scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions."

Under the tenets of methodological naturalism, intervention by an intelligent cause is not a "natural explanation." Intelligence can only be detected by other intelligence and not by only the five physical senses. Thus, by word‑smithing the pro­ponents of Evolution Only sought, but failed, to exclude any consideration of intelligent design when seeking to explain our origins to children.

Hand in hand with this fundamentally important decision, the Ohio Board also adopted science standards that require students to understand "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory..."

Evolution Only proponents cannot live with criticisms of evolution, because principle criticisms deal with subjects that Darwinists must avoid, such as: lack of explanation for the origin of life and biological complexity, the use of a naturalistic bias in violation of the scientific method, and the dismal track record of Darwinian predictions.

The action of the Ohio Board gave heartburn to the major science institutions. However, it was congruent with the wishes of the public. In June, 2002, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported the results of a poll conducted by a highly regarded polling organization. A stunning 91% of Ohioans voted against "Teach Only Evolution," while 82% favored teaching some form of intelligent design as well as evidence for and against evolution.

Progress with Textbooks and Curricula

The Ohio actions about state science standards are fundamental to objective science education. However, the real problem inheres in biology textbooks and curricula. The only options available to local school boards are textbooks which teach a very subtle Evolution Only "historical narrative" about where we come from. These books don't mention criticisms of evolution or the competing design hypothesis. The books simply "teach" that we are the product of an unguided natural process that is the message.

Although methodological naturalism is a "central tenet of modern science" and the explanations found in the textbooks, that fundamental assumption is not even mentioned in the books. Instead, the textbooks lead students to believe that the Evolution Only explanations are evidentiary‑based conclusions derived strictly by the scientific method. In fact, they are explanations dictated by a preconceived naturalistic assumption.

In 2002 a school board in Cobb County, Georgia decided to open the eyes and minds of students and scrap Evolution Only in both the textbooks and curricula. This was accomplished in a March, 2002, meeting where the Board directed that stickers be affixed to science textbooks which state:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

If there was ever any doubt about the bias of science institutions, it was eliminated with the announcement of this action. According to the AAAS and other science organizations, it is heresy to even suggest that evolution should be considered with an "open mind." Of course, the ACLU, the public defender of biased origins science, promptly filed suit against the sticker. We are pleased to see the suit, for it is one we should win.

The Cobb County action to use stickers to warn students about bias in textbooks was generated by a petition signed by over two thousand parents. The petition also urged the Board to adopt other measures to identify and correct bias and misleading statements in textbooks and origins science curriculum. The Board further responded in September, 2002, by adopting an objective origins science policy that encourages the discussion of "disputed views" about "the origin of the species." The new policy is posted on the web site of the Intelligent Design network (Anonymous, 2003).

In January, 2003, the Superintendent of Schools for the Cobb County district issued implementing guidelines. These would appear to require teachers to address the issue of methodological naturalism as teachers "moderate" discussions "that will distinguish between scientific and philosophic or religious issues." The guidelines also require teachers to "maintain a posture of neutrality toward religion." An Evolution Only curriculum that promotes a naturalistic world view is not religiously neutral.

Finally, teachers are to be supported in their efforts "to provide objective" instruction. With these guidelines, teachers should feel free to vary from the non‑objective Evolution Only agenda presently utilized in biology classrooms.

The Cobb County policy reflects concepts expressed in two pieces of legislation. A Congressional Report that accompanies the "No Child Left Behind Act" urges educators to teach children to "distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science." Concepts of objectivity and religious neutrality are also expressed in legislation introduced in the Ohio legislature. The language of Ohio HB 481 encourages objectivity, the disclosure of assumptions, and a discussion of the full range of scientific views that exist about our origins. These resources may be found at Intelligent Design network's web site (Anonymous, 2002).

Beyond Ohio and Georgia

The wedge that is splitting the Evolution Only paradigm has been science itself. The more we learn about the cosmos and life itself, the more we are driven to the conclusion that both are remarkably "fine tuned." Evolutionary "historical narratives" are nothing more than just‑so stories that appear increasingly inadequate to explain the awesome complexity of cellular information processing systems. Gene Myers, a lead scientist on the Human Genome project was quoted as remarking (Abate, 2001; emphasis added):

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life... The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed....There is a huge intelligence there."

Two new educational videos are explaining these scientific points to the public and school educators very effectively: Unlocking the Mystery of Life and Icons of Evolution. Not only do they unlock the mystery of life, they also are unlocking minds previously closed to anything but evolution. [Both videos are available from CRS Books: www.creationresearch.org.]

The actions in Ohio and Georgia, and new science and new educational materials are generating growing interest around the country in moving from Evolution Only to Objective Origins Science. Intelligent Design network, inc., an organization that arose out of the debate in Kansas three years ago, is now working with groups in fourteen states. Although, the wall of Naturalism seems as formidable as the Aswan Dam, we are beginning to see cracks in the edifice. To bring the wall to the ground we need very good supplements to current biology textbooks. None are presently available, but they will be produced. It is just a matter of time.

Thomas Huxley said: "Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed." Our science institutions are urging science to adopt the creed that we result only from natural processes and not by design. Creed adoption works in a closed society like that which prevailed in Nazi Germany. However, it can not replace the truth in an open society like ours. We have an insatiable thirst for the truth, and it will prevail. What we are seeing is truth pushing aside a worldview that some would like everyone to embrace. It just will not happen in the USA.

The wall of naturalism will come down!

References

Rennie, J. 2002. “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.” Scientific American (July, 2002). www.sciam.com/issue.cfm?issuedate=Jul‑02

Anonymous, 2002. Teaching resources for parents, teachers, and school boards. Intelligent Design network. www.IntelligentDesignNetwork.org.

Anonymous. 2003. Recent Actions Taken by School Boards and Districts To Foster Objective Origins Science. Intelligent Design network. www.IntelligentDesignNetwork.org/ccacts.pdf.

Abate, T. 2001. Human genome map has scientists talking about the Divine. Surprisingly low number of genes raises big questions. San Francisco Chronicle (February 19, 2001).

*This article was published originally in the January/February 2003 issue of Creation Matters, a newsletter published under the auspices of The Creation Research Society, and is used with permission. 

The author, John Calvert, is a lawyer with training and experience in geology, and is a Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc., a National organization that promotes objectivity in origins science. He is a retired member of Lathrop & Gage L.C., where he practiced law for 32 years in the areas of corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions and business litigation. He received his first degree in geology and has practiced geology in a number of legal engagements involving mining and the oil and gas industry and has studied structural geology and paleontology throughout the world.

He has been actively involved in efforts to promote objectivity in origins science throughout the United States and particularly in Kansas, Ohio, Georgia and West Virginia. In this work he has provided advice and counsel to school boards, school administrators and science teachers regarding the teaching of origins science. He is the co‑author of Teaching Origins Science in Public Schools (with William S. Harris, Ph.D.), and The Rule (with Dan Schwabauer) and has published a number of articles regarding intelligent design and the conflict between religion and science. He is a member of the American and Missouri Bar Associations.

Copyright © 2001 - 2007