Remove a secular and purely naturalistic philosophical bent to observing the world and some scientists believe you are redefining the English language. So suggests this article regarding the Kansas Board of Education’s desire to define Science as “‘a systematic method of continuing investigation’ using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.” What could be wrong with such a definition? The definition does not even hint at a religious view of seeing the world. The problem is that it does not make a god out of naturalistic science. The definition does not demand that the world bow to a non-neutral philosophy of seeing the world through atheistic eyes.
The objections to the new definition tend to demonstrate the anti-religious bias of some scientists who don’t seem to be pushing for objectivity of evidence, but rather supression of any conclusion that might demand the involvement of (or existence of) deity. Here is yet another evidence of the tolerance crowd showing a lack of tolerance toward a world-view that has the possibility of lending credibility to Christianity.
It is fallacious to think that secular scientists (i.e., those quoted in the article) are neutral in their observations of the earth and its functions. Their opinion seems to be, “if you have religious convictions, it impossible to be scientific”, or at least, “religious convictions cannot have any scientific conclusions” and vice versa.
Pure naturalism is a philosophical ideaology, not a result of unbiased, neutral observation. Why is it that science MUST be secular? My guess is that any scientific evaluation of this question would yield less than objective non-biased, answers.
