Obama & Creationism / ID, NCSE-NABT & Scientific Integrity, & Naturopathy's Vitalistic Woo:

President-elect Barack Obama is on record favoring upholding the integrity of science education, as reported by The Guardian [see 001., below]; the National Center For Science Education [NCSE] recently published a collection of position statements from major science organizations as regards "scientific integrity" [see 002., below]; naturopathy's vitalistic woo falsely labeled as scientific when truly profoundly science-ejected is a textbook example of a threat to the integrity of science [see 003., below]:

001. The Guardian's Adam Rutherford reports in "The Evolution of Science Teaching: Keep Creationism Off the Curriculum But Train Teachers To Deal With Questions About Intelligent Design" {2008-11-07}:

"[quoting Obama, likely from the York Daily Record interview of 2008-03-30] 'I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith [...] they're two different things [...] it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry'

[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems

[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils

[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."

Note: so, claiming the nonscientific [belief / articles of faith & kind] as scientific [what survives scientific scrutiny] 'clouds scientific teaching' / 'undermines scientific integrity' -- according to the President-elect. Rutherford additionally points out that within the ranks of UK teachers there's blatant science illiteracy & academic malpractice, as forms of delusion & ignorance that are just plain factually wrong in the context of science are being claimed to survive scientific scrutiny!

002. NCSE states in "Voices For Evolution" (ISBN 0615204619; 3rd. ed., 2008):

"[per the] National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) [NABT]: Scientific Integrity [...] the data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes.

Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."

Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.

003. naturopathy is an example of harming scientific integrity by posing what's profoundly science-ejected as scientific:

naturopathy is explicitly centered / obligated to "vitalistic theory" woo, yet claims to be science, while science has HUGELY ejected vitalistic theory.

004. the math:

when is something [falsely] labeled what it is not...

the absurdity known as naturopathy.

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism, & UBCNM: Wikipedia 2008:

here's a rather generic citation, from Wikipedia, concerning the HUGE scientific rejection of vitalism [see 001., below], while the University of Bridgeport, expressly vitalistic per their College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM; see 002.a., below] claims that naturopathy is science [see 002.b., below] while "science-based" medical advocates regard naturopathy as a "pseudoscientific cult" [see 003., below]:

001. the Wikipedia article "Philosophy of Biology" [accessed 2008-10-31] states:

"vitalism is the view, rejected by mainstream biologists since the 19th century, that there is a life-force (called the 'vis viva') that has thus far been unmeasurable scientifically that gives living organisms their 'life.' Vitalists often claimed that the vis viva acts with purposes according to its pre-established 'form' (see teleology). Examples of vitalist philosophy are found in many religions. Mainstream biologists reject vitalism on the grounds that it opposes the scientific method [it's antiscientific]. The scientific method was designed as a methodology to build an extremely reliable understanding of the world, that is, a supportable, evidenced understanding. Following this epistemological view, mainstream scientists reject phenomena that have not been scientifically measured or verified, and thus reject vitalism."

Note: vitalism, of any stripe, is scientifically rejected, rejected, rejected -- and blatantly ANTISCIENTIFIC.

002. meanwhile, naturopathy claims vitalism as a basis & an overarching label of science:

002.a. UBCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Six guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae" currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"six guiding principles: guiding principle #1, the healing power of nature, viz medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: this is also in UB's 2006-2008 catalog as:

"Principles and Practice 512 [...] the philosophical foundations of naturopathic medicine,
which form the basis for therapeutic intervention [...our] vitalistic medicine [...and] Principles and Practice 522 [...our premise of] the vital force and its role [as bioagency] in the healing process [p.291]".

002.b. UBCNM labels naturopathy overall "science":

002.b1. in "College of Naturopathic Medicine", currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care — an art, science and practice of preventing, diagnosing and treating conditions of the human mind and body [...within our] Health Science Center."

Note: this "science" label is also used by UB at "UB Spotlight: Health Science Programs" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

Note: UB claims that this ridiculous basis of 'science-ejected science' meets the standards of 'the professions'!!!

002.b2. in "Dean's Welcome", 2002 archive per the then UBCNM Dean:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

Note: UBCNM currently states this as well in "Today's Naturopathic Medicine" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

003. Dr. Atwood has written at "Science-Based Medicine" that this 'quite absurd naturopathic medicine thing' is a "pseudoscientific cult" per "Another State Promotes the Pseudoscientific Cult that is 'Naturopathic Medicine'".

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Premise - Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000) et al. (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

this 2008 "integrative medicine" career [mis]guide informs us of 'the essential vitalistic spiritistic belief premise" of 'modern' AANP-CAND-FNPLA naturopathy [a sectarian medical system; see 001., below] -- a premise which is profoundly science-ejected [see 002., below] WHILE naturopathy labels itself 'firmly scientific' [see 003., below] and 'not a belief system' [see 004., below] {welcome to the naturopathic ABSURD!!!}:

001. Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000), Wengell, D. (MBA Emory) state in "Educational Opportunities in Integrative Medicine: The A-to-Z Healing Arts Guide and Professional Resource Directory" (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

"Chapter 8: Naturopathic Medicine (ND) [...sidebar] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [...main entry] naturopathic medicine is defined as much by its holistic principles as by its techniques. There are seven principles of modern naturopathy [...#2] respect the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). There is an innate healing force within all life that is always attempting to prevent and / or heal every possible illness [...] so long as this 'life force' flows in a balanced, unimpeded way. Naturopaths help their patients to optimize this innate force [...] most medical systems in place before the rise of modern western medicine [...] were 'vitalistic' in nature, meaning that a spiritual 'vital force' or 'life force' was believed to be both the source of existence and the essential healing force for every person. Ayurveda's 'prana,' Chinese medicine's 'chi,' and Hippocrates' 'humours' are all versions of the vital force [p.120...] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [p.122...per a belief in] life force [p.124]."

Note: the book's title suggests its contents are 'of the professions'! And we are told by the authors, overall, as concerns this particular concept of bioagency -- naturopathy's supernaturalization of healing, aka vitalism:

"belief in this spiritual healing power is termed 'vitalism' [p.016...a putative power which is] unquantifiable in a scientific paradigm [p.175...e.g.: naturopathy's requisite homeopathy is] vitalistic, energetic, invisible, panacea-like, instantaneous, life force manipulating, and inexpensive [p.197]."

So, naturopathy is, make no mistake about it, a belief-centered spirit-manipulating system [shamanistic etc.; or as I'd said when deposed, a "cultic mystical weirdness"].

Also note: the homeopathy that is described above is considered a clinical science by FNPLA naturopathy.

002. keep in mind, as regards vitalism, it is profoundly science-ejected.

003. while, as regards naturopathic self-labeling, these health sectarians insist that they are science-based and this book states, as regards Bastyr University -- THE AUTHOR'S ALMA MATER -- who has already stated in the book that naturopathy is based upon vitalism & supernaturalism beliefs:

"Bastyr University was founded with the intent that science would be a cornerstone of naturopathy not merely a supporting figure [p.121...that Bastyr's context is ] science-based [p.048]."

004. for an AANP et al. 1997 document that absurdly simultaneously states that they are scientific and not a belief system [while essentially of the 'nonscientific science-ejected'], see this per:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science-based primary care doctors [...this] is not a belief system."

Note: for similar educational career misguidance from Bastyr directly, wherein they state that they are simultaneously scientific, supernatural and vitalistic [a logical impossibility] see this per:

"Bastyr at a glance [...] Bastyr University [...has] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...per] the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [shorthand for their vitalism context and 'science-nullifying' 'knowledge-type nullifying' epistemic conflation!...aka, this is] natural medicine."

005. judgment:

"danger, Will Robinson, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience!!!'"

Decoding 'Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Premise': ACS 2008, via SCNM 2003 & ISBN 1439200688 2008 et al.:

as I've often written, you cannot be too careful when it comes to how naturopathy is communicated: because, not may sources will give you the clear picture -- particularly the AANP-AANMC-CAND variety! Unfortunately, this apparently includes the American Cancer Society [ACS; {in part}]! ACS states naturopathy's nonscientific status and their "healing power" premise [see 01., below]. I 'flesh out' precisely what that premise is [see 02., below] -- in sum, a sectarian spiritual belief without scientific support [see 03., below] posing as science-fact, misleading the vulnerable {patients and education customers}[see 04., below]:

01. the ACS states in "Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine [...aka] naturopathy, natural medicine [...] enlist[s] the healing power of the body [...] supporters claim that naturopathic medicine uses the healing power of nature [...] treatment is focused on the [this!] cause of the disease [...] practitioners claim they use 'natural methods' to strengthen the body's ability to heal itself [...] in 1968, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a report stating that the educational programs for practitioners of naturopathic medicine did not adequately prepare them to make accurate diagnoses or treatment decisions [...and] concluded that naturopathic medicine was not based on widely accepted scientific principles of health, disease, and health care [...] available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine is effective."

Note: naturopathy as a method and premise, in-itself, is stated as 'not scientifically supported or based' and based upon a "healing power." This needs to be fleshed out [its unified nature has to be emphasized {the healing power -- contextually -- is specifically what is HUGELY nonscientific}].

02. what the healing power of nature precisely is for naturopathy [aka, don't let the naturalistic language fool you!]:

02.a. the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM] states in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?" (archived here):

"the healing power of nature [HPN...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...such vitalism-in-action is] the essence of naturopathic medicine."

Note: so we have HPN=VMN=chi=prana=vital force as the ESSENCE of naturopathy. Incidently, there is, within the above quote, quite a scientifically illiterate claim: that life defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics [it does not, I've written about this elsewhere].

Mind you, SCNM is within the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] which states, in "Naturopathic Medicine: Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained" (archived here):

"students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation.”

AANMC actually labels itself one of the "branches of medical science."

By logical necessity, if the foundation of naturopathy is vitalism and simultaneously naturopathy is labeled a science, then vitalism is science.

02.b. but, the recently published "Life Energy Encyclopedia: Qi, Prana, Spirit, and Other Life Forces Around the World" (ISBN 1439200688; 2008) indicates otherwise:

"[since] thousands of years ago, humans have speculated about some kind of life force [vitalism]. In China it is called qi [...] in India prana, in ancient Greece pneuma, in Latin spiritus, and in Hebrew ruach. There have been hundreds of life energy beliefs [back cover]."

Note: we have life force=qi=prana=pneuma= spiritus=ruach=etc. Importantly, we also are told that such is "belief." Obviously, the belief -- vitalism -- is supernatural, in the sense that life force is equated with spirit. Vitalism, in this context, is therefore a form of spiritism.

You should begin noticing a contradiction: because science truly does not invoke or support the supernatural, yet the NDs are telling us that science contains their essentially supernatural / sectarian belief set [see 02.c2., below].

02.c. the point-man of naturopathy, Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975), EMBODIES this contradiction / irrationality in stating that 'the essentially science-based' is simultaneously 'the essentially science-ejected vitalistic-spiritual':

02.c1. in his book "Total Wellness: Improve Your Health By Understanding the Body’s Healing Systems" (ISBN 0761504338; 1996), he states:

"[e.g., naturopathy's essential vitalism {purposeful life spirit} premise] our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003...there are] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body [which] must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit) [p.024...you must] live in harmony with your life-force [p.026 ...] live in harmony with the psychosocial/ spiritual/ life-force [p.317...] our self-healing abilities -- the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...] it is increased awareness of and access to this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [p.333...for] life force. See spiritual system [p.410]."

02.c2. while in "Encyclopedia of Complementary Health Practice" {ed.: Clark, C.C. (? ?)} (ISBN 0826112390; 1999), Pizzorno tells us:

"[e.g., naturopathy's science claim, per] doctors of naturopathy [...] are educated in conventional medical sciences [...and] naturopathy is defined by [its] principles [e.g., vitalism & supernaturalism!...that are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are continually reviewed in the light of current scientific advances [p.057]."

Note: actual scientific scrutiny reveals vitalism has been scientifically-ejected for several decades, while supernaturalism [such as spiritism] has been scientifically-ejected for a few centuries!!! Duh!!! I call this "epistemic conflation" and an example of "sectarian pseudoscience."

03. what science says about vitalism:

vitalism is profoundly science ejected,

supernaturalism is profoundly science-ejected.

There simply isn't any scientifically acceptable, actual evidence requiring these premises. They are as scientific as the Tooth Fairy.

04. an unethical sectarian pseudoscience:

notice that naturopathy's communicators & agents don't transparently reveal 'naturopathy's essential scientifically-ejected vitalism-spiritism premise.' They falsely posture a scientific status for such beliefs: there is no admission that they are instead a sectarian belief system, as opposed to what is scientifically-based -- at their core.

I consider this grossly medically unethical: how is a patient -- particularly a vulnerable cancer patient -- to make an informed decision, therein?

Note: meanwhile, the AANP-University of Bridgeport-et al. snookered me a decade ago with with their deceptions, literally stating naturopathy is "not a belief system" and is "nonsectarian."

Fascinating...