Francis,
I agree with you completely regarding those two little words. However, I think that your critique failed to go far enough. There is also that little word, “natural,” that contains all sorts of philosophical baggage.
Although we assume that gravity is a natural force that formulaically determines the movement of objects, science can’t observe whether it is natural or instead a law that exists in the mind of God. However, this naturalism bias is responsible for eliminating all mention of design or intelligence from the science classroom.

“Although we assume that gravity is a natural force that formulaically determines the movement of objects, science can’t observe whether it is natural or instead a law that exists in the mind of God. However, this naturalism bias is responsible for eliminating all mention of design or intelligence from the science classroom.”
Well, if we are to adopt this approach, who is to say that it must be the Biblical “God” that was responsible for this. One could just as easily say that the three brothers, Odin, Vili and Ve (of Norse cosmology) were responsible for gravity. After all, Norse mythology has a creation story that is every bit as plausible, from a scientific standpoint, as that found in the Bible.
The argument you make, Daniel, is dangerously close to the logical fallacy “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. To say that because we cannot prove that there is no involvement of God in creation we must, therefore allow for that possibility places the burden on the wrong side of the equation. Those who posit that God is/was involved in creation bear the burden of providing proof of their claim.
The next time you or a loved one faces a serious illness, where will you go for treatment? Will you, as the Bible counsels, ask the elders of your church to pray over you and anoint you with oil? Or will you go to a medical professional with sufficient training and experience and have him/her diagnose your condition and offer treatment? By your argument, both of these courses of action must be equally applicable since we have not proven prayer and anointing with oil to be useless in the treating of illness.
Is it possible that there is a deity involved in the evolutionary process? Certainly. There is also a possibility that aliens from Mars are also involved in the process. The standard for the advocates of either of these positions is the same.
Prove it.

“Although we assume that gravity is a natural force that formulaically determines the movement of objects, science can’t observe whether it is natural or instead a law that exists in the mind of God.”

You mean Intelligent Falling?

“However, this naturalism bias is responsible for eliminating all mention of design or intelligence from the science classroom.”

Science is the only thing that belongs in the science classroom.

As Karl Giberson noted, Eugenie Scott is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
This excellent organization defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. It is religiously neutral, with both believing and non-believing members. Membership is open to everyone, so I encourage one and all to visit the NCSE web site and consider joining.

Since surveys tend to show that about 40-45% of scientists are theistic evolutionists, the issuance of a theologically neutral statement on evolution is by far the best choice.
If one is going to insist that science is all about evidence (and it is supposed to be, on paper) then why issue a statement with unproved and unprovable assumptions?
Do we really need to explain the futility of trying to prove a negative in this case?

Thanks, BeagleLady, for reminding me about the NCSE. I remember being troubled by the NABT definition and still find it often in Creationist literature as proof that evolution is inherently atheistic. Thanks to Scott and others who helped to change it.

“To say that because we cannot prove that there is no involvement of God in creation we must, therefore allow for that possibility places the burden on the wrong side of the equation. Those who posit that God is/was involved in creation bear the burden of providing proof of their claim.”
This question doesn’t belong in a science classroom. It’s a philosophical question.

RJohnson
You wrote, “Well, if we are to adopt this approach, who is to say that it must be the Biblical “God” that was responsible for this. One could just as easily say that the three brothers, Odin, Vili and Ve (of Norse cosmology) were responsible for gravity. After all, Norse mythology has a creation story that is every bit as plausible, from a scientific standpoint, as that found in the Bible.”
Although I agree with you that we can have a very interesting conversation about which God best accords with the evidence, this is an entirely different question. I had reasoned that the concept of “natural” or “naturalism” is a philosophical and not a scientific concept. Although we can observe regularities in the physical world and correctly assume that there are causes or laws underlying them, we cannot assume or observe that these are “natural,” unintelligent, unpurposeful laws or forces rather than laws that exist in the mind of God.
By the very fact that you didn’t address this challenge leads me to believe that you didn’t have an adequate response. Although you responded, “The argument you make, Daniel, is dangerously close to the logical fallacy “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. To say that because we cannot prove that there is no involvement of God in creation we must, therefore allow for that possibility places the burden on the wrong side of the equation. Those who posit that God is/was involved in creation bear the burden of providing proof of their claim,” this misses the mark. At this point, I am not trying to prove that God is involved; I’m merely pointing out that “naturalism” is no more than philosophy, and yet it rules the science classroom.
Nevertheless, I would be glad to try to demonstrate to you that supernaturalism in a paradigm is far more scientifically preferable than naturalism. Please check my blog where I am beginning to provide such proof.
Beaglelady:
You wrote that, “Science is the only thing that belongs in the science classroom.” In one sense I agree with you, and that’s why I am challenging the bias of “naturalism.”

Daniel,
Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science is self-limiting and employs methodological naturalism. This is really its strength. Science simply doesn’t have the means to investigate the supernatural. (Do not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. The latter is the belief that the material world is all that exists.)
Also, a “God of the gaps” approach (where God is a placeholder for human ignorance) is poor theology. When science discovers something new, the “God of the gaps” becomes a celestial cockroach, scurrying pathetically away from the light in search of another dark hiding place. Furthermore, as the gaps in scientific knowledge get smaller (and they have), the God of the gaps become more and more irrelevant. What kind of faith is that?

Beaglelady,
You responded, “Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena.”
Please do not ignore my challenge that naturalism is no more than a philosophical bias without any scientific support.
You also stated that “ Science is self-limiting and employs methodological naturalism. This is really its strength. Science simply doesn’t have the means to investigate the supernatural.”
An important distinction needs to be made here. While it is true that we can’t put God in a test tube (we can only manipulate physical phenomena, not spiritual phenomena), trying to construct a scientifically coherent worldview or theory based upon the phenomena is another matter. If we are willing to consider natural causation, there is no reason why we shouldn’t also consider its one counterpart, supernatural causation (Intelligent Design).
You concluded that “When science discovers something new, the “God of the gaps” becomes a celestial cockroach, scurrying pathetically away from the light in search of another dark hiding place. Furthermore, as the gaps in scientific knowledge get smaller (and they have), the God of the gaps become more and more irrelevant.”
This conclusion hinges of course upon your unproven assumption that the increase of scientific knowledge represents a victory for naturalism. Instead, I think it more appropriate to make the charge “naturalism of the gaps” in view of all of the findings pointing to design.

“Please do not ignore my challenge that naturalism is no more than a philosophical bias without any scientific support.”

Please tell us what you mean by naturalism.

“An important distinction needs to be made here. While it is true that we can’t put God in a test tube (we can only manipulate physical phenomena, not spiritual phenomena), trying to construct a scientifically coherent worldview or theory based upon the phenomena is another matter. If we are willing to consider natural causation, there is no reason why we shouldn’t also consider its one counterpart, supernatural causation (Intelligent Design).”

Science doesn’t construct worldviews. At any rate, please tell us what a good lesson plan on gravity would look like.

This conclusion hinges of course upon your unproven assumption that the increase of scientific knowledge represents a victory for naturalism.

I made no such assumption. What the heck does “victory for naturalism” mean? Faith and science are not at war. That’s the whole point of this blog. Actually, we can thank God for new scientific knowledge. May God bless the scientists who will enable me to get a shot for the H1N1 (“swine flu”) virus!

Instead, I think it more appropriate to make the charge “naturalism of the gaps” in view of all of the findings pointing to design.

Please list all these findings.