These scientists reaffirm that, "Allowing students to studyŠ disagreements over parts of evolutionary theory is a healthy part of a first-rate science education. Censoring such disagreements from the classroom would be a disservice to genuine science and a setback to good science education."

In fact, more than 300 scientists, including faculty members at Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the University of Georgia, have signed a national "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" statement. This statement reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The Darby proposal seeks objectivity, this is what existing policy on "academic freedom" requires, what our state standards support and what our Congress encourages.

Next, I believe the writer is unknowingly misleading the reader with regard to our "founding fathers" opinions, especially in the area of science in the public schools.

An example, in 1797, Thomas Paine, arguably one of the "least religious" of our founding fathers, harshly criticized what the French were then teaching in their science classes - especially the "philosophy" they were using.

In "The Study of God," Paine writes, "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.

Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author...The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence."

While I agree with the writer, we should "trust our founding fathers," clearly, to do so would be illegal.

Despite this fact, some scientists stubbornly and desperately cling to an antiquated materialistic philosophy that only serves to obstruct the pursuit of good science.

Recently, Linda McCulloch, our state schools superintendent, was quoted as saying she "criticized the effort" to have "philosophies put into our (Montana's) curriculum."

The question must be asked, "is it philosophy in general that she opposes or is it an opposing philosophy, other than naturalism?"

For example, a local paper quoted Fred Allendorf, University of Montana Professor of Biological Sciences, to say, "As soon as you posit a supernatural creator...you move outside the realm of science".

This statement is clearly not based in science but rather in philosophy. Mr. Allendorf is basing his definition of what is or is not science, not on observable data, objectively interpreted, but on a metaphysical assumption that cannot be falsified, tested or observed.

His narrow definition of science is influenced by a philosophical presupposition that "natural" or "material" causes are all that exist. This is the naturalistic approach to science that was criticized by our founding fathers.

If a scientist's observations are subject to his bias and evidence is filtered through the same philosophically biased lens then the conclusions drawn must inevitably reflect the same bias. Therefore, all conclusions drawn must logically be void of any possibility of the supernatural.

As a result we are left not with a "true" search for the truth, but with a modified search, limited within the context of the scientist's definition of truth or within his system of beliefs or philosophy.

Take wildfires for example. Our state can give witness to fires started from both natural causes (i.e. lightning strikes or unintentional) and other than natural causes (i.e. design or intentional).

If any responsible arson investigator began his search for the "true" cause of the fire with the working assumption that there are no causes other than natural, he would inevitably conclude that the fire must have started from "natural" causes and not an intentional act of arson.

No rational person, except possibly the arsonist, would conclude that this investigation was reliable because the investigator's version of "truth" was established before the investigation even began. 

According to Henry Schaffer, Ph.D., five time Nobel nominee and author of more than 1000 scientific publications, the most visible problem with Darwinism, once clear of its philosophic smoke and mirrors, is that "there remains no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life."

As we consider the question of biological origins and the controversy between the longstanding paradigm of Darwinism and the currently emerging scientific challenges to its supremacy, we should not shrink from the numerous discoveries of 21st century science.

The scientific search for truth should and must be, objective, unbiased, and void of philosophical prejudice, even if the evidence is found to be antagonistic toward an "unintentional occurrence" and consistent with an "intentional design.

After all, the Montana Constitution does not shrink away from such a possibility, but rather is established on such, as can be clearly seen in its Preamble:

"We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution."

Curtis L. Brickley lives in Darby.

---

Reader's Comments >>

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)   

---