Holding back the genuine exploration of alternative approaches within science teaching

Christian schools in Australia have defended their teaching of Intelligent Design in their science classrooms against the dogma of Darwinism. According to Christian schools hit back over origin of life by Linda Doherty, Education Editor, for the Sydney Morning Herald:

Christian schools have defended their right to teach intelligent design in science classes to explain the origin of life, accusing skeptical scientists and teachers of "ideological conservatism".

In the latest salvo over the theory emanating from the United States, Christian educators said no approach to science was "value-neutral" and that both Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and intelligent design "have their own strong ideological foundations". Intelligent design says that some forms of life are so complex they can be explained only by the actions of an "intelligent designer".

Carolyn Kelshaw, chief executive officer of Christian parent-controlled schools, and Richard Edlin, principal of the National Institute for Christian Education, said "intolerant" opponents of intelligent design were holding back "the genuine exploration of alternative approaches within science teaching in Australian schools". "We are dismayed that some science educators appear to be committed to their own ideological conservatism," they said in a statement.

Carolyn Kelshaw and Richard Edlin's line (which serves as the title of this post) is one of the great lines I have read in this debate. Yes!! They have nailed it! The people who support the teaching of Darwinian evolution only cannot possibly be interested in maintaining the integrity of scientific study. They want to maintain the monopolistic hold of the dogmatism of the Darwinian worldview in the science classrooms.

True science is all about exploration and discovery. It makes us rethink what people have long held to be true -- on both sides. As stated by Robert L. Park, in The New York Times, 7 December 1999, "The greatest discoveries of science have always been those that forced us to rethink our beliefs about the universe and our place in it." It doesn't matter if the belief being rethought is a religious belief or a quasi-religions philosophy, science -- done properly -- may challenge long-held beliefs.

So, is Darwinian Evolution a quasi-religious philosophy? Consider the following from "Evolution vs. intelligent design: which model has more integrity?
" by Fred Hutchinson for Renew America, a conservative grassroots organization:

Scientific naturalists from Diderot to Freud promoted the idea that science was linked of necessity to materialism and that any conclusions of research that allow for a realm outside of a closed system of material cause and effect must not be science. Evolutionists still make this claim today. But is it true? Not at all. Materialists have used the mechanisms of nature in an attempt to prove materialism, but that does not prove that the assumption of materialism is essential to science. * * *

Although many evolutionists are saying that intelligent design is not of science because it does not support materialistic assumptions, saying so does not make it so. Such an assertion is unnatural to science. It is prima facie evidence that the loyalty of the evolution establishment to a philosophy trumps their curiosity about where the facts lead and calls into question their integrity concerning the pursuit of truth. Not only is a materialist philosophy not essential to science, but the insistence that it is essential to science forces science to serve a philosophy. This fallacy is a potentially corrupting influence upon scientists.

It is not enough to point out a fallacy that is a potentially corrupting principle. It is also necessary to point to specific corrupt actions that flows from the fallacy. Each example must be a recurring syndrome and not just the act of one corrupt person.

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "We do not have to respond to criticism from intelligent design people because they are not of science." Truth: It is a fallacy to say they are not of science because they do not subscribe to a philosophy of materialism. It is contrary to an essential principle of science that inconvenient criticism can be disregarded. One of the time-tested principles of science is that the science community must attempt to "falsify" the results of research. Only conclusions that cannot be falsified should be accepted as sound research. The refusal of evolutionists to answer serious criticisms might be an evidence that they have no answer and prefer to silence the conversation.

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "Intelligent designers do not publish their papers in academic journals so as to expose themselves to the criticism of their peers. Therefore, they are not of science." Truth: This claim is based on the concealment of a false premise. The false assumption is that the journals would publish papers written by intelligent design scientists if the papers were of good quality. However, the biological science journals are controlled by the evolution establishment. Papers submitted by intelligent design scientists are automatically rejected. The prejudicial blackballing of a category of dissenting papers displays a lack of integrity by the evolution establishment and perhaps a fear of the truth. The claim that there is something wrong with intelligent designers because they do not publish is a cleverly deceptive statement. Actually, there is something wrong with the evolution establishment for refusing to allow intelligent design scientists to publish their papers. It is a question of integrity.

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "There is no evidence to support intelligent design and no evidence that challenges evolution." Truth: Such a statement can only be made by a liar, or one who has never read what the intelligent design scientists are saying. Evolutionists get away with the big lie tactic by suppressing the works of intelligent design scientists.

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "Intelligent design is biblical creationism in fancy dress." Truth: Biblical creationism starts with a biblical model and works outward from the model to the evidence. Intelligent design starts with observed facts and cautiously works upwards towards conclusions that it hopes will eventually be the foundation of a mature model. Evolutionists laugh at Intelligent designers because they lack a mature model. Intelligent design scientists are suspicious of evolutionists because of their agenda to find facts or reinterpret facts to fit their model and to sweep facts under the rug that do not fit the model.

With all due respect to those who have been fooled into accepting Darwinian evolution as the only possible scientific explanation, the efforts to keep science classes as a Darwinian evolution-only forum mandates the submission of more "religious" dogma into the classroom than any mention of Intelligent Design would invite.