Yes, this is a wise move by NABT, but it is intended for the benefit of
NABT, not to be neutral or to help those who take other positions.
The *revised statment* is less theologically non-neutral (although it is
still not neutral, as discussed later in this message), but we should not
be fooled into thinking that *NABT* is therefore more neutral; they remain
biased toward a-theistic interpretations of science and nature.
For example, Eugenie (of NCSE, not NABT) describes criticisms of the
original NABT statement as coming from "anti-evolutionists" -- rather than
from all of those (including many pro-evolutionists) who think it is beyond
the scope of science to extrapolate from "evolution" to "unsupervised and
impersonal."
>As a science education organization, the NABT needs to avoid giving the
>impression that they are taking sides in theological issues -- an
>impression given by the original text of their statement."
NABT wants to avoid *giving the impression* of non-neutrality in
theological issues, but this isn't the same as actually *being* neutral.
**************************************
As an indication of a-theistic bias, Scott (near the end of her page,
http://www.natcenscied.org/nabtart.htm) says of the NABT statement,
"Evolution is still described as a "natural process" (the only phenomena
science can study), and a later bullet states that natural selection
"has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species." The
strong position of evolution in biology and other sciences was not
compromised by removing two adjectives that miscommunicated NABT's meaning."
In stating that evolution is a "natural process," NABT and Scott continue
to make a logical error, when they move from the fact that evolution is a
natural process studied by science (true) to the inference (questionable)
that evolution is therefore a "natural process" -- which implies that the
process (which in this context is intended to mean "mechanism") really is
unsupervised and unguided, as in the original NABT statement. By retaining
the word "natural" NABT retains the original implications, even though it
is (without careful thinking) less obviously theological than before.
summary: NABT/Scott confuse DOMAIN with MECHANISM when they extrapolate
from the limited DOMAIN of science (which studies only natural phenomena)
to a conclusion about MECHANISM (that all natural phenomena occurred due to
an only-natural mechanism). This extrapolation is logically equivalent to
an a-theistic statement that "whatever the scientific conclusion is (and
with MN this will be a-theistic), this is what actually occurred."
Eugenie's statement re-emphasizes the need to take a stand at one of two
points -- either by challenging MN (as suggested by Phil J and other
advocates of "ID as science") or by challenging the assumption (made by
Scott) that "whatever MN-science says is true." If neither of these is
challenged, then the inescapable logical conclusion is that the universe is
a-theistic (or deistic) with no "theistic action" by God.
{ In an effort to avoid a strawman-attack that I'm certain would come
otherwise, I ask you to please notice that the paragraph above is valid
even if evolution is totally atheistic/deistic with no "theistic action"
(either miraculous or smoothly-blending). If evolution is natural but God
is active in other contexts -- such as those described in the Bible, and in
the lives of present-day people -- this is theologically acceptable. }
Craig Rusbult
Madison, WI -- rusbult@macc.wisc.edu
website -- "Science and Design: Methods for Using
Creativity and Critical Thinking in Problem Solving"
http://labweb.soemadison.wisc.edu/users/rusbult/