Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The AAAS Releases a “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution”.


Here’s an excerpt from the Statement:

Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. Scientists ask questions about the natural
world, formulate hypotheses to answer the questions, and collect evidence or data with which to evaluate the hypotheses.
Scientific theories are unified explanations of these phenomena supported by extensive testing and evidence. The theory
of evolution, supported by extensive scientific findings ranging from the fossil record to the molecular genetic relationships
among species, is a unifying concept of modern science. Of course, our understanding of how evolution works continues to
be refined by new discoveries.

But how do we tell that which is intelligently designed (by anyone or anything) apart from that which is produced by unintelligent natural processes? Is it just a matter of faith? In order to find a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon, we must first identify which phenomena are natural. (By “natural”, I mean as opposed to artificial rather than supernatural.) But how do we do that? The rule seems to be that if it’s possible for mankind to have made it, scientific design detection is applicable; but if not, we just presume that unintelligent causes did it–regardless of how probable or improbable the best unintelligent explanation may be. When it comes to biological phenomena, we just presume that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can explain them all because they are the only testable unintelligent mechanisms capable of producing such phenomena. Nevermind the fact that it looks uncannily as if it were the product of actual intelligent design. Nevermind the fact that a supernatural causal account is not necessary. Nevermind the fact that a detailed, testable, reasonably probable account of its formation is not forthcomming. We know unintelligent processes made it! Why? Because such an explanation is unfalsifiable; that’s why.

Go here to read the Statement in its entirety.

The theory of evolution, supported by extensive scientific findings ranging from the fossil record to the molecular genetic relationships among species, is a unifying concept of modern science. Really? Funny that the fossil record nor genetic relationships can tell us absolutely NOTHING about a mechanism! Both morphological AND genetic similarities can arise via convergnce. Gee AAAS how would one falsify the claim that someparticular biochemical system (or organism) arose via some blind-watchmaker-type process? Please take your double-standards and put them some place out of sight... Joseph
It should be noted that both "intelligence" and "design" are natural processes- "natural" being defined as existing in or produced by nature. It should also be noted that natural processes could not account for the origin of nature as natural processes can only exist in or be produced by nature. The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.” “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be. As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge. Joseph
I have to say that I agree with this statement. Science is aand probably will always be a search for natural explanations, but that does not mean that there will always be natural answers. ftrp11
"Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena" I think we should change the word "science" to "naturalism". Mats
The statement by the aaas can be shown to be mathematically wrong. http://www.panspermia.org/thebegin.htm
We are up against the limit initially exposed by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. As a consequence of work begun by philosopher Kurt Gödel in the 1930s, we now know that knowledge can't be both complete and grounded in something else. For example, the rules of chess are complete, but they don't depend on anything else. Chess is a complete and ungrounded system. The laws of science, on the other hand, are grounded in the physical world, but they can never be completely known. Every answer in science begets new questions.
Therefore, the natrual world can never be completely explained by natural laws. It violates Godel's incompleteness. AAAS is promoting metaphysics, not logic, nor even science. Shame on those guys. Can't they ever admit that the cannot possibly know something. Must they pretend that they can speak on behalf of God by insinuating science can explain the natural world through natural laws alone (baloney). scordova

Leave a Reply