Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!mcnc!pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion Subject: Can Creationists Contribute to Science? Message-ID: <1330@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 00:43:50 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1330 Posted: Thu Jan 5 00:43:50 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Dec-83 00:41:46 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 142 >from "Origins Research", Fall/Winter 1983 A Proposal to Eliminate the Deleterious Effects of Religious Beliefs upon Science and Education by Dr. Robert E. Kofahl The following proposal was submitted by Dr. Kofahl for review and criticism by the readers of "Origins Research". The essence or the proposal is to redefine "science" such that it becomes a philosophically neutral enterprise. Such a definition allows persons of any belief system to participate in scientific endeavor without fear of reprisal or discrimination. During the past year Dr. Kofahl has lectured on university campuses on this topic and has submitted the proposal to peer review. This version represents his most recently adapted and highly evolved draft. Send your comments to Dr. Robert Kofahl, Science Coordinator, Creation-Science Research Center, P. O. Box 23195, San Diego CA 92123. A. Summary 1. A correct definition of science is philosophically neutral, implies no particular philosophical-religious faith or world view, and does not require that the scientist hold any particular belief system. 2. Particularly since the time of Darwin many scientists and philosophers have either implicitly of explicitly espoused definitions of science which incorporate the philosophical world view of materialistic monism, or at least have required thought and research in science to harmonize with such a world view. 3. This metaphysical injection into the definition of science has in effect automatically tended to bend science and science education to a philosophical-religious end, i.e. the indoctrination and regimentation of all students and practitioners of science and science education (and most other scholarly disciplines) in accord with a particular belief system. 4. To the extent that the above conditions exist, science and science education obviously need to be reformed by achieving a general agreement to restore the correct, philosophically neutral condition of science. 5. The results of this reformation will be beneficial to science, to individual persons involved in science, be they practicing scientists, teachers, or students; to all of scholarship; and to society at large. B. A Philosophically Neutral Definition of Science and its Implications 1. Definition: Science is the systematic extension (by intent, methodology, and instrumentation) of human experience for the purpose of learning more about the natural world and for the critical testing and possible falsification of all hypotheses about the natural world. 2. The assumptions basic to science a. I am real. b. The external world is real. c. My natural senses give me a reasonably reliable perception of the external world. d. The natural world is lawful and reproducible and therefore worthy systematic investigation. e. The laws of logic are valid. 3. Logical corollaries drawn form the definition which define the proposal a. The scientist is not required to hold to or reject any particular religious-philosophical belief system. b. The scientist is required to submit his methodology, data and conclusions to critical review by his peers. Provided he does this, criticism of his work by his peers on the basis of any reference whatsoever to his personal belief system or lack of one is ruled out. c. The peer review system may not have any element of philosophical bias. d. Thus scientists (and also teachers, students and all scholars) are to be judged on the basis of their performance, not at all on the basis of a willingness to surrender their minds to somebody else's belief system. e. There is no requirement that all scientists must function under the same set of paradigms. f. There is no restriction on the sources of ideas and hypotheses in science. Other scientists should have no concern about the source of ideas which gave rise to one man's hypothesis, if it deals with the reproducible empirical world and if it is open to test by critic or doubter. g. There is no requirement that the scientist assume: 1) That there is no teleology in the natural world. 2) That no divine intervention has ever occurred in the natural world. 3) That every observable datum can be totally explained in terms only of material cause and effect. 4) That no divine revelation provides valid information about the natural world and that no hypothesis derived from biblical data may be may rightly be entertained by a scientist. 5) That God does not exist and only the material world is real, or at least that the scientist must function accordingly in his laboratory, thus submitting to the proposition that his personal faith has no relevance in his scientific endeavor. h. A scientist may adopt or reject any of the above assumptions, as he wishes, but that is a matter of his own personal faith, not of science. C. Goals 1. To restore science and all of scholarship to the condition of an open-ended search for knowledge and understanding. The present condition of science leaves open only the ends toward non-God, impotent-God, or irrelevant-God. 2. To alleviate the animosity which exists in scientific and scholarly circles toward anybody who choses faith in materialistic processes. 3. To bring an end to discrimination, penalties, and injuries leveled against those who reject the current reigning philosophical-religious viewpoint in science, education and all areas of scholarship. 4. To assure that all scientists, teacher and students are judged on the basis of performance, with no discrimination, preference or penalties assessed on the basis of belief systems. 5. To make available to the scientific and other scholarly pursuits a larger and more diverse pool of potential participants. 6. Thus to elevate the intellectual challenge and quality of all scholarly enterprises. 7. Through achieving the above goals, to alter the erroneous public perception of science as being anti-God of anti-religious. D. The Solution 1. The fundamental requirement is the achievement of a consensus among practitioners in science, education and other areas of scholarship which accepts a philosophically neutral definition of science and also the logical corollaries which we have drawn therefrom. 2. Once this consensus is achieved, the goals will in time be attained automatically. September 16, 1983 The address of "Origins Research" is P. O. Box 203, Goleta CA 93116. Paul Dubuc