With permission I am posting this on various lists. Comments are welcome and
will be forwarded to Dr Stenger.
Bob Zannelli
============================
The Kansas board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no
longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
This has met with strong objections from scientists, which I think
are misguided.
Scientists should stop insisting that science is limited to the study
of natural phenomena ("natural" = material: space, time, mass,
energy, etc.) This just plays into the hands of those who want to
accuse us of dogmatism. Our stand should be that we examine all the
evidence and seek to explain what is observed in terms of models
based on concepts that in the past have proved successful and that we
have labeled "natural." However, should some phenomenon defy all
natural explanations, then we are willing to consider other models.
Now, here is an additional advantage I can see if we take this
attitude. It means that when supernatural phenomena are claimed we
will be able to address them according to the same critical analysis
we apply to natural phenomena. Make a hypothesis and test it against
the data.
Those who are promoting a critical analysis of evolution in science
classes might not be so happy if we come back with proposing a
critical analysis of religious claims as a consequence of their
"teach the controversy" principle. Maybe that would make them change
their minds about putting religion in science classes!