By Definition, Biological Origins Do Not Qualify As Natural Science

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,¹ Dr. Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, and Dr. Robert Pennock, Professor of Philosophy of Science, Michigan State University, testified in federal court as expert witnesses for the Plaintiffs. They both noted that “methodological naturalism is a ground rule of [natural] science which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.”²

In the Conclusion of his legal opinion, Judge John E. Jones noted, “Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff’s scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, …”³

While everyday evolution may represent good natural science, biological origins do not. Every biological origin of a gene, an enzyme, the onset of life or the onset of consciousness occurred in the distant past as an unique event under indeterminate conditions by an unspecified cause. Unique events occurring in the distant past under indeterminate local conditions by an unspecified cause cannot be observed, tested, replicated or verified. While bench science might eventually approximate biological origins, it will never duplicate biological origins.

Professor Ernst Mayr wrote, “Laws and experiments are inappropriate in an historical science.”⁴

Since biological origins cannot be observed, tested, replicated, and/or verified, they are incompatible with methodological naturalism and simply do not qualify as natural science. Scientists made a categorical error in labeling biological origins as natural science. Biological origins belong to their own category, Biological Origins, where all logical causes, including intelligent causation, are on the table.

1. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2D 707 (M.D.Pa. 2005)
2. Ibid, 65.
3. Ibid, 136.
4. Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American, (July 2000), p. 80.