Kansas Hearings: Harris

Posted 12 June 2005 by PvM

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/kansas-hearings.html

On page 28, in the Kansas Science Hearing May 5, Mr. Irigonegaray is cross examining witness Harris and exposes the contradictory beliefs.

Harris clearly accepts that science should be dealing with naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations should not be allowed. And yet he objects at the same time that the science standards should mention something about guided/unguided and the fact that they don’t is a problem…

It seems to me that Phillip Johnson has left a legacy of confusion when he conflated philosophical and methodological naturalism. Too bad that countless Christians are left with an inability to reconcile their faith with scientific fact and theory: Christianity in Crisis…

Harris is asked about science and accepting any particular religious view or atheistic view. When asked about where in the standards it takes a position where it references atheistic views, Harris answers that he does not find them in the standards explicitly and that’s the problem.

Q. You would agree with science should not involve itself with accepting a particular theistic view, but rather to use the rigorous scientific process to search for answers?

A. Or atheistic view.

Q. Where in the standards do you find any reference to atheistic views to be the practice in the state?

A. I don’t find them written explicitly in the standards.

Q. Are you aware that there are many people, millions of people throughout the world that believe that God acts through natural process and that science does investigate the natural process and that it is not incompatible for someone to be both a scientist and a religious person?

A. Yeah, I’m aware there are a lot of people like that.

Q. Not a problem with that?

A. Well, I have— I think they don’t understand evolutionary theory very well. And I think the position that God invented evolution to make all of this is a faith statement, it’s not a scientific statement.

Q. Where do the science standards say anything about unguided or undirected?

A. That’s the problem, they don’t.

Q. So you’re suggesting that because the standards don’t say that, that is a problem?

A. That’s why we’re— that’s why we asked that it be added because that is the fundamental theory and it needs to be exposed and it needs to be disclosed.

Q. Whose fundamental theory is it?

A. Well, I could read some quotes from evolutionary biologists who write textbooks that say it is a completely unguided process.

Q. Referring to the science standards?

A. No, the science standards do not say that.

Q. And that’s what this is about is science standards?

A. Exactly. It’s what’s left out of the science standards.

Q. Should science be involved with the process of attempting to ascertain how the natural world around us functions?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your opinion that it is appropriate to teach students supernatural answers for that process in the science curriculum?

A. No.

Q. So you would agree with me that supernatural or miraculous explanations should not be allowed?

A. Not in science education.

In the second excerpt, Harris is asked about if the standards state that evolution is based on atheism or in conflict with a belief in God. Harris accepts that science should not deal in religious arguments such as the supernatural and yet he seems to object to the standards not mentioning religion.

Q. Do the standards state anywhere that science or evolution theory is based on atheism or in any way in conflict with belief in God?

A. No, the standards do not address that.

Q. Is it your opinion that to believe in evolution one must adhere to naturalism?

A. If you would define evolution for me.

Q. Evolution as it is in the mainstream of scientific understanding.

A. That’s what I need to have defined.

Q. You don’t understand what I mean by evolution?

A. I know that that’s the slipperiest term in town today and that term can mean change over time, which I agree with completely. That term can mean all that we have in the world today is an accident and I disagree with that. So I need a definition. Q. Is evolution defined in Draft 2?

A. It’s defined in toto, yes. It’s described—actually evolution is— I don’t think it’s described quite like that as a definition like a dictionary definition, but it’s certainly benchmark three, standard three, the 8th through 12th grade is all evolution.

Q. And is it your opinion that that definition stands for naturalism and some sort of religion?

A. The uncritical acceptance of a perspective that says all of life is here by chance, which is, I think, what the minority— excuse me the majority report portrays.

Q. Where does it say that?

A. That’s what I see it in toto. In words it doesn’t say it, that’s what I see.

Q. So once again, you are assuming that that’s what it says? (Reporter interrupts). Just please hang on. You are simply making an assumption that that’s what it means even though that that is not what it says, correct?

A. I am making the assumption based on working on those standards for the last nine months, yes.

Q. The question is, that’s not what the standards say, correct?

A. We think they need to say it more clearly what evolution is, that’s why we have the Minority Report.

Q. And is it your opinion that mainstream science today is, in fact, analogous to religion?

A. No, no, no, not at all. We’re just talking a tiny sliver of science today that concerns itself with the origin of life. The origin of the universe, that area, I think is fundamentally driven by a naturalistic philosophy, but that is a very, very small piece of science.

Q. Based on your interpretation, is it your opinion that the majority are atheists?

A. No.

Q. You would agree, would you not, that there is absolutely no conflict between individuals possessing a particular faith and their ability to work in science?

A. I agree.

Q. And you would agree, would you not, that it is exceedingly important that science - for the betterment of humanity, for the education of our children, and for the separation of church and state - should not include atheistic views?

A. I think it shouldn’t include any philosophical or religious views.

Q. I have nothing further for you.

What a witness, arguing that the standards should remain neutral with respect to philosophical and religious views, and who argues nevertheless that the problem with the standards is that they do not include such views…

The good thing about these hearings is that they not only show the scientific vacuity of ID, but also the religious motivations of its supporters. I can’t wait to hear their testimony quoted in the what seems, inevitable, court case.
DI must be shuddering at the thought of yet another poorly thought out court case where ID is put to the ‘test’.

12 Comments

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 June 2005

I was rather impressed (unfavorably) with the consistent ID responses to the simple question "what is the theory of ID all about?": Harris testimony:

10 Q. Would you explain why you believe-- what it is 09:20AM 11 that you believe should not be prohibited? 12 A. Well, what is basically Intelligent Design? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. Well, I guess at it's core, the way that I 15 would describe it, is sort of by contrast. In 09:20AM 16 my view, and I think this is true, evolution 17 really is a claim-- evolutionary theory or 18 Darwinian evolutionary theory is a claim that 19 all the apparent design in life, and most 20 everybody recognizes that things look like 09:20AM 21 they're designed, but that it is only apparent, 22 that it is only an illusion, that really law 23 and luck, chance and chemical interactions are 24 really responsible for all this what looks like 25 design, but it really isn't design. A design 09:21AM 0042 1 has intent and purpose and it's put together in 2 forethought. That's a long definition. 3 Intelligent Design is simply a scientific 4 disagreement with that respect. If this is all about science and not about 09:49AM 21 philosophy or religion why do you keep bringing 22 up atheism, materialism, naturalism, and 23 humanism to this argument? 24 A. Well, in my remarks I said it's not all about 25 science. This is a scientific controversy that 09:49AM 0065 1 has powerful theistic implications. So it's 2 not all about science. It's-- the core is 3 about science, but there is a penumbra, there's 4 an umbrella out here that's philosophical and 5 religious and that's where it comes in. Q. Who is the designer? 7 A. That, I don't know. 8 Q. Would the designer imply a supernatural being? 9 A. If you could define supernatural for me. Page 29 Science Hearing May 5 2005.txt 10 Q. Something other than human. 09:57AM 11 A. Other than human? 12 Q. Something other than the biological processes. 13 A. Something-- I think that it's conceivable that 14 something like that could exist. 15 Q. When you talk about an intelligent designer, to 09:57AM 16 you personally what does that mean? 17 A. To me personally I-- because I hold the 18 Christian faith I believe that we be guided by 19 the Bible. That's a faith position, that's not 20 a scientific position. 09:57AM 21 Q. So the designer, according to you, would be a 22 Christian type designer? 23 A. Well-- and if I was a Muslim I would say the 24 designer is Alah. If I was any other faith I 25 might say-- you know, that's-- again, that's a 09:58AM 0071 1 faith position, that's not science. That's my 2 opinion outside of the science classroom.

Thaxton testimony:

Q. You would agree with, would you not, that the 23 science standards provide a foundation for the 24 development of a curriculum and they do not 25 limit the scope of knowledge? 11:22AM 0123 1 A. Well, I think they do limit the scope of 2 knowledge. 3 Q. In what manner, sir? 4 A. They adopt the natural cause only perspective 5 and I think that limits them. 11:22AM 6 Q. And you're suggesting that supernatural causes 7 should be inserted? 8 A. That's an example of precisely the kind of 9 thinking that I said the majority report put in 10 that I thought was the problem. 11:22AM 11 Q. Well, if it's limited to the natural and you 12 suggest that that is inappropriate to limit it 13 to natural, wouldn't logically that would 14 require us to teach the supernatural? 15 A. If you're talking about metaphysics, yes, but 11:23AM 16 we're not talking about metaphysics. 17 Q. We're talking about science? Page 51 Science Hearing May 5 2005.txt 18 A. Natural does not mean naturalism unless you 19 exclude the possibility that-- not exclude, if 20 you say only natural causes are permitted that, 11:23AM 21 in effect, is saying-- it's what's tacit 22 naturalism. Even though you haven't used it, 23 you're saying natural cause only. 24 Q. Sir, please don't put words in my mouth. I 25 have not used the word naturalism. Naturalism 11:23AM 0124 1 is something completely different. 2 A. That's true. 3 Q. Naturalism implies that the individual with 4 that belief excludes the possibility of a God 5 in any process. I am talking about the natural 11:23AM 6 process which is involved in science. Do you 7 believe that in an appropriate scientific 8 curriculum for the children of the State of 9 Kansas supernatural theistic opinions should be 10 included, yes or no? 11:24AM 11 A. No.

Wells' testimony:

Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design 19 must, in the end, conclude that a designer was 20 involved? 02:09PM 21 A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something 22 is actually designed, then a designing mind had 23 to do it. 24 Q. But you're not suggesting it was the design of 25 man? 02:09PM 0187 1 A. Designed by man? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the 4 scene, no it couldn't be. 5 Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is 02:09PM 6 a supernatural one, is it not? 7 A. I won't go there.

Ely's testimony:

Q. What's your alternative explanation how the 11 human species came into existence if it is not 12 through common descent? 13 A. Design. 14 Q. And design would imply a designer? 15 A. Implies a designer, but we don't go there 1 Q. Isn't design a philosophical assumption? 2 A. No. 3 Q. How do we falsify the designer? 4 A. We don't go there. We're not going to talk 5 about the designer. Q. So philosophically discuss it, but it's not a 20 good idea to interpose the supernatural in what 21 should be a scientific process. Correct? 22 A. We're not doing that. 23 MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further 24 questions.

DeHart's testimony:

Q. So one side of that story supports one kind of 3 a religious belief and the other side supports 4 the different kind, is that-- is that a fair 5 statement? 6 A. The only concept-- in the words of Steven 7 Wineberg, the only concept of a designer that 8 makes sense is a designer who creates. And so 9 if you're saying that nature is capable of 10 creating that precludes the idea that there is 11 a designer and so that is what-- a construct of 12 ethological naturalism or philosophical 13 naturalism. 14 Q. You believe removing your supplemental 15 materials respectively caused you to promote if 16 you were just going to teach one side of the 17 story, a-- a naturalistic explanation. Is that 18 right? 19 A. Well, yes. It shows that the evidence, 20 empirical evidence is there to support a 21 Darwinian view, which is that natural selection 22 acting on random mutation is how man got there. 23 There's no theology. There's no purpose or 24 inordinate. Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the 22 human species came into existence if you do not 23 accept common descent? 24 A. Design. 25 Q. When did that design occur? 0103 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Who was the designer? 3 A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching 4 my class I do not answer that. 20 Q. My question is is the word naturalism anywhere 21 in the Kansas standards? Yes or no? 22 A. No, but it's implicit in the way that you've 23 defined science. 24 Q. As a search for natural answers, is that the 25 implication you suggest? 0106 1 A. Only natural answers. 2 Q. And you suggest that a better alternative would 3 be to include supernatural answers? 4 A. Intelligent causes. 5 Q. Intelligent cause is a disguise for a 6 supernatural answer. Correct? 7 A. Darwinism masquerades as materialist-- 8 materialism. 9 Q. That's not my question. Listen carefully. I 10 asked you whether or not the suggestion that 11 intelligent design is a masquerade for a 12 supernatural answer. Correct? 13 A. That's a leading question. 14 Q. Of course it is. Is it or not? 15 A. I think if the evidence shows that things have 16 intelligent causes we should be able to go 17 there in science, if it's about searching for 18 truth. 11 Q. Do you believe it is appropriate for students 12 to be exposed to a teacher's individual 13 religious views in public schools? 14 A. Neither those of atheism or theism, they should 15 stick to the job of science, yes. 16 Q. Is it your job that evolution as it is taught 17 in mainstream America today is atheistic? 18 A. Well -- 19 Q. Yes or no? 20 A. Yes, by definition it is. 11 Q. Do you believe it is appropriate for students 12 to be exposed to a teacher's individual 13 religious views in public schools? 14 A. Neither those of atheism or theism, they should 15 stick to the job of science, yes. 16 Q. Is it your job that evolution as it is taught 17 in mainstream America today is atheistic? 18 A. Well -- 19 Q. Yes or no? 20 A. Yes, by definition it is.

Gonzalez-Bravo testimony:

Are you saying 5 there that the evolutionary explanation is a 6 naturalistic one and if that's the only 7 explanation that's permitted then you're 8 effectively skewing belief in that direction? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What-- would you say that the naturalistic 11 explanation supports non theistic beliefs while 12 the non naturalistic or the disagreement with 13 that naturalistic belief supports theistic 14 beliefs? 15 A. That seems to be the concern that has been 16 expressed to me by many parents. 17 Q. And the parents' concern is that you aren't 18 promoting a curriculum that supports only one 19 kind of religious belief? 20 A. Right.

Millam testimony:

9 Q. What is the alternative explanation that you 10 propose then for human species? 11 A. Again, I'm a chemist, not a biologist. 12 Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you what is 13 your explanation if you do not believe in 14 common descent from prehominid ancestors? 15 A. I do not think the scientific evidence is 16 sufficient to give an answer to that question. 17 Q. You have no personal view about that? 18 A. I have a personal view, but the question is 19 what does science say. 20 Q. What is your personal view about that? 21 A. I-- again, I do not believe that the scientific 22 evidence is sufficient to rule out -- 23 Q. I didn't ask you scientifically. I'm asking 24 you what is your personal opinion about that 25 issue? 0163 1 A. Again, I-- at this point I do not believe in a 2 natural explanation for the origin of humanity. 3 I'm willing to change my mind if I find that Page 67 Science Hearing May 06 2005.txt 4 evidence.

Bryson testimony:

15 Q. What is your alternative explanation for how 16 the human species came into being if not from a 17 common descent from prehominids? Page 10 Science Hearing May 07 2005.txt 18 A. From science, I have no alternative 19 explanation. 20 Q. In your personal opinion? 21 A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an 22 intelligent designer. 23 Q. And when did that intelligent designer create 24 the human species? 25 A. I'm not sure. 0025 1 Q. Now, that opinion that you have about 2 intelligent design, that's not based on 3 science, correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. That's based upon your theistic views? 6 A. Correct.

Meyer testimony:

13 Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an 14 alternative explanation for the human species 15 if not common descent from prehominid 16 ancestors? 17 A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at 18 the other end of the history of life, namely 19 the origin of the first life in the Cambrian 20 phylum. Page 41 Science Hearing May 07 2005.txt 21 Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the 22 question I have just proposed to you, which is 23 if you do not believe that human beings have a 24 common descent with prehominid ancestors, what 25 is your personal alternative explanation for 0100 1 how human beings came into existence? 2 A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal 3 common descent and I'm skeptical about some of 4 the evidence that has been marshaled for the 5 idea that humans and prehominids are connected. 6 But as I said, it wouldn't bother me 7 (unintelligible) stronger than I presently 8 think. 9 Q. What is your personal opinion at this time? 10 A. That I'm skeptical about the Darwinian accounts 11 of such things, but that it wouldn't bother me 12 if it turned out to be different. I think my-- 13 I also would tell you that humans and the rest 14 of the non human living world, that humans have 15 qualitatively different features that I think 16 are very mysterious and hard to explain on any 17 materialistic account of the origin of human 18 life. Should the teaching of 25 science-- and let's say with Kansas. Should 0110 1 the teaching of science curriculum in Kansas as 2 it relates to evolution be free-- completely 3 free of supernatural causes? 4 A. I don't think anyone is proposing a 5 supernatural cause.

Menuge testimony:

Q. What is the alternative explanation? 8 A. Well, there are a number of alternative 9 explanations. Right now, as this book shows, 10 there are views looking at self-organization, 11 which don't necessarily agree with that 12 viewpoint. They may or they may not. But 13 there is also the idea of design. 14 Q. And your opinion as to when that design 15 occurred? 16 A. I don't know.

Nord testimony:

What does descent from 6 mean? If that means that neo-- if 7 Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are adequate, fully 8 adequate for the explanation, I don't believe 9 that. But if design or theological 10 explanations are allowed to account for Page 14 Science Hearing May 07 2005 PM.txt 11 explaining at least part of what happens in 12 evolution, then I accept that.

Akyol testimony:

Q. You've mentioned ID theory. Would you please 22 tell us precisely what ID theory is? 23 A. Intelligent Design theory is a scientific 24 theory which argues that life on earth can be 25 explained as a result of natural laws, chance, 0068 1 and intelligence. So it's a theory which 2 argues that intelligence can be detected in 3 nature and, yes, it is being detected. So-- 4 and it's also a theory which disagrees with 5 Neo-Darwinian theory, which argues that life on 6 earth is the product of chance and laws

All of these IDers have given the very same "answers" that *I* get whenever I ask an IDer to tell me about his "theory". What I get are various versions of either (1) "Jesus saves!!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you". It's nice to see IDers be consistent, for a change. I can't WAIT to see these dolts argue in court, with a straight face, that (1) evolution is unfair because it only accepts naturalistic explanations, but (2) they don't want any supernatural explanations to be taught, and (3) they won't tell us what the designer is because "we won't go there". These court cases will be SUCH slam dunks.

Harrison Bolter · 12 June 2005

Well, this has been said before, but I think we're in for a long slog. It seems obvious that these people are either A) lying through their teeth or B) somehow able to compartmentalize their brains to the extent that they just do not see how they are contradicting themselves. Such people are, I think, inaccessible to reason and logic, and they won't give up easily (or, perhaps, ever). And, alas, they have the ears of the leaders of the party in power...

steve · 12 June 2005

These ID guys look clueless.

anonymous · 12 June 2005

Possibly because they are clueless.

Joseph O'Donnell · 13 June 2005

This lot was the best the ID movement could come up with to defend their 'theory' at the court trial? I can't wait to see what they do in front of a real court.

a maine yankee · 13 June 2005

"To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery," Dawkins said, according to a BBC report. "It is teaching something that is utter nonsense. Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled."

The above leaves little left to say, eh?

Ron Okimoto · 13 June 2005

At a real court trial the ID side will not call any of these guys again. They would have to explain what is written in these transcripts and their other activities. Just look at the guys that they got to testify at the Arkansas trial on scientific creationism. Morris, and Gish didn't testify because they had left too much of a paper trail. Guys like Dembski and Meyers wouldn't testify for the same reason. They are left with the second string, and now they will have to look for a new second string.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 13 June 2005

At a real court trial the ID side will not call any of these guys again. They would have to explain what is written in these transcripts and their other activities. Just look at the guys that they got to testify at the Arkansas trial on scientific creationism. Morris, and Gish didn't testify because they had left too much of a paper trail. Guys like Dembski and Meyers wouldn't testify for the same reason. They are left with the second string, and now they will have to look for a new second string.

Meyer did testify, so did Behe and Wells. Dembski didn't. And you're right --- if any of these dolts show up in court in Dover, their statements in Kansas (as well as all their written publications) will be used to skewer them.

SEF · 13 June 2005

Can't the science side subpoena the ID leaders/"experts" anyway, if they wanted to do so (ie in order to expose the vacuous and dishonest nature of their activities)?

Unsympathetic reader · 13 June 2005

Regarding DeHart:
"2 Q. Who was the designer?
3 A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching
4 my class I do not answer that."

Why can't science answer that? It is not possible that clues about the designer's identity or source of origin might exist (particularly if the designer was "merely" an extraterrestrial and not a supernatural being)? And doesn't Hoyle's panspermia hypothesis suggest that the vehicles of design information (in this case, extraterrestrial viruses) may be found?

The correct answer is: "science might not be able to answer that". To claim that "science *cannot* answer that" prematurely curtails such investigations.

So much for the idea that ID would enable progress in science.

tytlal · 13 June 2005

If I believe something is real, clearly when something is not, would I be labled "crazy" or "in need of help"? Why do the religious fantics get a free pass in the name of religion if they believe the Earth is flat, for example. Sure, we all get a good laugh but what if . . . I claim the Earth is flat but not in the name of religion? Would I not be labled as crazy? The sun is GREEN. Why not.

Seems to me too many people in the name of religion are allowed to believe just about anything because it is their "beliefs".

Latest news on Dover? Witnesses/experts, etc.? How will the hearings differ from Kanasas.

Thanks

C.J. O'Brien · 13 June 2005

Seems to me too many people in the name of religion are allowed to believe just about anything because it is their “beliefs”.

Daniel Dennett treats this double standard in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" To badly paraphrase, basically he says that allowing religious propositions into the argument is "Intellectual tennis without the net," which he is happy to play: So, it's faith's serve. The return (Dennett) is "So God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil?" Faith: "That doesn't make sense!" Reason: "Oh, so you want the net down for your serves, but back up again for my return?" I'm afraid that's exactly what the IDers want.