|
CNN Interview with John Calvert
CNN
February 13, 2001
Intelligent Design Network's John Calvert on creationism vs.
evolution in
schools
John Calvert is the managing director of Intelligent Design
Network, a
nonprofit organization formed in 1999 in the wake of the Kansas City
Board of
Education debate.
Chat Moderator: Welcome to CNN.com, John Calvert. Thank you for
joining us
today.
John Calvert: Hello. It is a pleasure to be with you today.
Chat Moderator: What was the main focus of your presentation to the
school board
committee today?
John Calvert: The principal focus of our proposed provisions is to
remove the
naturalistic philosophy, which drives origin science under the
Kansas Science
Standards. That philosophy is incorporated into the standards, by
the way, in
which the standards define science. Under those standards, science
is defined as
the activity of seeking only natural explanations for what we see in
the world
around us. Natural explanations have been defined by the drafters of
the
document as those which do not permit a design inference.
The co-chairman of the committee explains that because only natural
explanations
are permitted, a science teacher is not permitted to discuss with
the students
the evidence of design that exists in nature. If the student raises
a question
about that evidence, the student is directed by the standards to
take that
question elsewhere, to "appropriate resources," without defining who
or what
those resources might be.
That definition, along with other parts of the science standards
which make
evolution a unifying concept and one which purports to account for
all changes
in the natural world, does indeed constitute a document that directs
teachers to
promote only a naturalistic view as to origins, and that is
naturalism.
We do not believe naturalism is appropriate because we think it is
not
consistent with recognized definitions of science, because it
conflicts with
logic, because it conflicts with scientific method, because it
conflicts with
neutrality defined by the Constitution, and because it conflicts
with our
cultural tradition.
Our proposals were recently circulated to two groups of scientists,
educators
and lawyers for review. We received from that group over 104 written
endorsements indicating agreement with the substance of our proposed
revisions.
Included within the 104 are the holders of 58 doctoral degrees, 15
of which are
in biological sciences, including biology, biochemistry, molecular
biology,
neurobiology, microbiology, plant pathology and zoology. Thirty-four
of the
endorsers are employed or retired as college professors, nine are
research
scientists, eight represent physicians and healthcare professionals.
Eight of
the endorsers are attorneys, and four hold PhDs in philosophy.
Question from chat room: What verifiable facts can you cite that
argue for
intelligent design over random chance or the theory of evolution?
John Calvert: I think that the question asks for what is the
evidence of design.
We do not claim that design necessarily trumps evolution. We simply
say that to
do good science, we should be permitted to consider all the evidence
and allow
the evidence to drive our conclusion, rather than a philosophy.
Having said
that, the evidence that the supports design theory begins with the
apparent
design that is observed in nature, and particularly, in living
systems, and
which is acknowledged by even the most ardent evolutionist.
Secondly, there is the lack of any known physical or chemical
process that can
account for the biological information and information processing
systems found
in living systems, clearly. Thirdly, there is the irreducible
complexity of many
biological systems and machines. Fourthly, there is statistical
study indicating
the improbability of such systems arising by chance-based
mechanisms. Fifth,
there are comparisons of biological information systems with those
that are
human made. Sixth is the abrupt appearance of phyla and the fossil
record, and
not finally, but an additional item of evidence, is the existence of
flaw
constants and forces essential to life that fall within specifically
improbable
ranges.
Those are evidences that support design as an explanation for the
origin of life
and a person. Our belief is that evidence should not be censored.
Question from chat room: Is just another attempt to twist language
in order to
get creation science back on the books?
John Calvert: No. This is an effort to return science to an
objective-based
endeavor, which seeks to do science objectively by the scientific
method, and
not according to a philosophical restraint.
Question from chat room: Does the Intelligent Design Network make
this
information available to the public on a Web site?
John Calvert: The site is www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org.
Chat Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts for us today?
John Calvert: I appreciate the opportunity to explain our views and
the
questions we have been asked. They are all questions that need
answers. We very
much appreciate the audience looking at our Web site and reading the
materials
that you find there. They will show what we are about and what we
would like to
have done.
Chat Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, John Calvert.
John Calvert: Thank you for having me.
John Calvert joined the chat via telephone from Kansas City, KS, and
CNN
provided a typist for him. The above is an edited transcript of the
chat on
Tuesday, February 13, 2001
|
