Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
As I do with every single “anti-evolution” quote from creationist writings, I looked this up.
Now, it’s not an easy one to find because it only appears in two places: 50 different creationist websites and Nature Magazines archives from 1999. And those archives cost money to peruse... unless you happen to have an account like me.
As someone wrote earlier, Dr. Todd is but one voice and he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants. This quote (and it is, indeed, a direct quote... for once) was part of a longer letter to Nature regarding the science curriculum debate in Kansas 10 years ago.
For those of you interested how how/why Dr. Todd wrote this, here’s a bit more context.
“...Creationists, according to Johnson, do not doubt that DNA encodes the features of an organism or that changes in DNA (mutations) give rise to variation in those features which are subject to selective pres- sures in nature. Mainstream creationists also accept that genetic and phenotypic changes could result in speciation. They consider evolution as a plausible model to account for the natural history of living things, but they see a great distinction between the empirically proven elements of evolution (micro-evolution) and the expla nation of speciation and origins of life (macro-evolution). Students in Kansas will still be required to learn the former, but it will be left to local school districts to decide whether they are required to learn the latter.
The lesson to be learned from the events in Kansas is that science educators every- where must do a better job of teaching evo- lution. It must be made clear that the evi- dence supporting the mechanism of evolu tion is empirical and proven, but that speci ation and natural history are derived from the admittedly weaker evidence of observa tion. The fact that one cannot reproduce the experiment does not diminish the validity of macro-evolution, but the observed phenomena supporting the theo ry must be presented more clearly.
Additionally, one must question the interpretations of the observed phenomena and discuss the weaknesses of the model. Honest scientists are far more inspiring than defensive ones who scoff arrogantly at the masses and fear that discussing the problems of macro-evolutionary theory will weaken general acceptance of it. On the contrary, free debate is more likely to encourage the curious to seek solutions. Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolu tion, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.”
Scott C. Todd
Let me ask why it is (and when it was and by whom it was determined) that science could only BE science if it’s somehow natural?
After all, tax money funds scientists to study multiverse theory, string theory, and even scientific study into response to prayer. (As far as I know)
How would you determine if it's NOT "anti-evolution" if it's not from a creationsist, say if it was this so called "peer review of evolution" I continue to hear about, and how do you tell the difference?
Also, if a paper was submitted by a creationist or an evolutionist, how would you tell the difference between "peer review", vs. "anti-evolution", if there were no name attached to the paper and it was submitted anonymously?
Lastly, is a creation scientist "allowed" to "peer review" evolution, or is it always labeled "anti-evolution", and does this work in reverse?
Because I keep hearing, even by you on this very thread today, about creation scientists submitting their ID papers for this so-called "peer review"...is this paper up for peer review among only the creation scientists or only evolution scientists or both; or is it ALWAYS and forever to be labeled as "anti-creation science" when it is "peer reviewed" by evolution scientists and "peer review" when reviewed by creation scientists?