Home        Publications


Intelligent Design network, inc.
  
                            P.O. Box 14702, Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285-4702
                               (913) 268-0852; (913)-268-0852 (fax); IDnet@att.net
                                             www.IntelligentDesignnetwork.org


Letter Published in the Pratt Tribune on December 20, 2000

By 

John H. Calvert

Naturalists are censoring science.

I have been a securities lawyer for 32 years. In that business we focus on keeping misinformation out of prospectuses that are designed to sell stock. Under the law misinformation is not only an affirmative misrepresentation, but is also an "omission" to state a fact that is necessary to make other statements made not misleading. Over the years I have found that major misinformation frequently exists in what is not said.

With that preamble, I have the following comments about the letters of Messrs. Grogger, Krebs and Humberg that were posted in the Pratt Tribune on Dec 13 in response to my defense of IDnet that was posted on December 6, 2000.

The most telling part about the three letters, is that all omit to respond to any of the substantive issues raised in my letter. By omitting any discussion of the key issues they draw public attention away from the real issue and focus it on false characterizations of the motives of IDnet and KCFS.

The key issue raised by my letter and ignored by the three responses is whether the science establishment and our public schools should use the philosophy of Naturalism to censor evidence that undermines Darwinism and that supports an inference that living systems may be designed. My letter also details rather specific instances of misinformation for which no public rebuttal is given.

The evidence of design that appears in nature is overwhelming. It has been recognized by scientists, philosophers and theologians since the beginning of civilization. Even the most ardent ID opponents recognize that living systems appear to be designed. What is happening now is that as science develops even more sophisticated techniques to observe nature, it is finding even more evidence of design. Cosmologists are finding the universe fine-tuned to such a degree that they are being forced to develop speculative theories of multiple universes to avoid a design inference. Biochemists are finding a language and libraries of information in each of our cells that direct the construction of machines and systems that defy explanation by anything other than design. Geology (a field in which I was trained and continue to pursue as an avocation) is discovering a fossil record that is more consistent with a design inference than the competing Darwinian theory.

The question facing our culture is whether we are going to use Naturalism to ignore, suppress and censor this evidence of design so that our children and their children will come to believe that they are merely the purposeless products of the laws of chemistry and physics and not the product of any design.

Websterís defines Naturalism as "the doctrine that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for ALL phenomena and that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid." Although a major objective of IDnet is to promote design theory, its primary objective is to remove the philosophic constraint which censors it.

Although Naturalism may work in sciences that are focused on observation and experiment, as in the case of physics and chemistry, Naturalism does not work in evolutionary biology and other origins sciences which are HISTORICAL sciences that seek to "construct a historical narrative" of past events.

If Naturalism was applied to arson investigations to censor design inferences all arsonists would go free.

That is the problem with origins science. The science establishment is telling its members to ignore and censor the evidence of design that is observed to occur in nature. They are also told to refrain from any criticism of Darwinism because that criticism supports design theory. Scientists are told that their task is to look only for ways to support Darwinism. All of this censorship reflects Naturalism in action.

If there is any uncertainty about the true intention of the KCFS and the science establishment, ask how they propose to change the definition of science in the existing Kansas science standards. They are presently circulating a draft of new standards that seek to eliminate logic from science and replace it with Naturalism by changing the definition of science. Science is now defined as the "activity of seeking LOGICAL explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The KCFS backed draft defines science as the "activity of seeking NATURAL explanations for what we observe in the world around us." Curious as it may seem, the battle is really over a single word that will determine whether origins science will be driven by logic or philosophy.

We have repeatedly pointed out in writing the logical, scientific, legal and cultural problems that arise with the teaching and preaching Naturalism to our children in public schools. However, rather than respond to these criticisms, the KCFS has engaged in misinformation by diverting public attention from these arguments through mischaracterizations of their own motives and the motives of IDnet.

This tactic is never more apparent than in the three letters. They exhibit a complete lack of substantive response to any of the key issues mentioned above and in my letter of December 6. Instead, they label a logical design inference drawn from evidence that appears in nature as religion and call it "Intelligent Design Creationism." They use the word "Creationism" because they want the public to improperly equate design inferences with the teaching of "creation science" which courts have held to be a violation of the constitution. "Creation science" has been defined by the courts as an endeavor which seeks to prove the truth of the Genesis account of creation. Although a design inference supports any theistic belief, an inference drawn from naturally occurring evidence is not a religion and the ACLU and the KCFS know that.

As the KCFS knows, the ID movement is focused on keeping Naturalism and the Darwinian theory that it protects from being preached in our schools as a religion. Rather than being a religious organization, IDnet is one focused on getting religion and philosophy out of origins science so that origins science will be driven only by logic, the evidence and the scientific method. If there is any doubt about the focus of IDnet, go to our web site and read the IDnet publications that are listed on the publications page [http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm].

The other deceptive strategy used by the science establishment is to lead the public into believing that origins science acts like an independent, unbiased and trustworthy arson investigator. As to evolutionary biology and other areas of origins science, that is not the case. In those areas the agenda is to tell only a "naturalistic" account of how things came to be. Design inferences are not allowed. When origins science protects its explanation from criticism and the evidence that supports the competing hypothesis, it becomes a religion and a philosophy and not a science. The KCFS is not for science. The agenda of the KCFS is to promote the philosophy of Naturalism in origins science.

I will acknowledge that my letter equates the misinformation of the public to support the teaching and preaching of Naturalism to our children and our culture as one that is akin to the same sort of naturalistic misinformation that led a large segment of the German population to support a eugenics program of mind numbing proportions. However, I donít see any problem with the analogy when one considers the long range consequences of a continuation of this brain washing. Although Matt Groggerís claim that "we have no 8 inch guns" may be literally true, the misinformation that is being fed into the minds of our children and the public on the origin of life and its diversity can be far more destructive over time than a nuclear war head. In a cultural war, which Jack Krebs just calls a "political conflict," misinformation used by powerful institutions can be far more powerful than 8 inch shells.

John Calvert

Managing Director
Intelligent Design Network, Inc.
December 18, 2000