My Favorite 'Science Excludes Supernaturalism' V4E3 Quotes

here, I cite from the National Center For Science Education's "Voices For Evolution" (3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2009) [V4E3] regarding the preponderant exclusion of supernaturalism from science:

001. "Kansas Academy of Science [...] 2006 [...] ideas that involve a supernatural agent are not scientifically testable, and therefore not scientific [p.059]."

002. "National Association of Biology Teachers [...] 1995 [...] science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing [p.154]."

003. "National Science Education Leadership Association [...] 1990 [...] creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science [p.161]."

004. "New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education [...no date] these people denounce the theory of evolution and would substitute a non-scientific, supernatural explanation of the origins of life forms on earth [...] the creationist goal is to allow supernatural explanations into science in order to change the very basis of science. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism or intelligent design, if allowed, would change this to promote supernatural explanations for natural phenomena – a contradiction in terms with regard to science [p.167]."

005. "University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology: Statement on Evolution [...] 4/19/2006 [...] in science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including intelligent design creationism, are not scientific because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that ‘both sides’ of the issue are taught is to advocate that nonscience be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic. We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with respect to evolution, or to broaden the science curriculum to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of  Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations [p.179]."

Note: guess what area claims -- absurdly -- that science INCLUDES the supernatural and science-exterior?

Executive Branch on Scientific Integrity and Public Trust, and the Fake Branch of Medical Science Unworthy of Public Trust

here, I cite from recent White House documents on science [see 001., below]; then, I reiterate naturopathy's claim that it is a branch of "medical science" while essentially hugely-of-the-science-ejected, with examples provided from the National Academies and a Canadian ND [see 002., below]: 

001. the White House states:

001.a. in "Scientific Integrity: Fueling Innovation, Building Public Trust" (2010-12-17):

"John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [...states] President Obama [has] issued a Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity emphasizing the importance of science in guiding Administration decisions and the importance of ensuring that the public trusts the science behind those decisions [...] he highlighted six principles of scientific integrity [...] he asked me, in collaboration with other Federal officials, to craft recommendations for ensuring scientific integrity throughout the executive branch [...this includes] a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency [...] as the President said at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences last year, 'science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.' I am confident that today’s Memorandum will help ensure that science and technology continue to be brought to bear by this Administration with the greatest effectiveness and integrity in the service of all of the national goals the President has so clearly articulated."

Note: so, good science / science-with-integrity is worthy of trust and vital.

001.b. and Holdren specifically states in that "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies" (2010-12-17):

"on March 9, 2009, the President issued a Memorandum articulating six principles central to the preservation and promotion of scientific integrity and assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes [...] foundations of scientific integrity [...] scientific and technological information is often a significant contributor to the development of sound policies. Thus it is important that policymakers involve science and technology experts where appropriate and that the scientific and technological information and processes relied upon in policy-making be of the highest integrity. Successful application of science in public policy depends on the integrity of the scientific process both to ensure the validity of the information itself and to engender public trust in Government [...] agencies should develop policies that ensure a culture of scientific integrity. Scientific progress depends upon honest investigation, open discussion, refined understanding, and a firm commitment to evidence [...] adopting appropriate whistleblower protections [...] facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information [...] establish principles for conveying scientific and technological information to the public [...an] accurate presentation of scientific and technological information."

Note: pretty good stuff.  I wholeheartedly agree.  It may even lead to smarter decisions,  like not going to war over imagined weapons of mass destruction as we stay more grounded in reality.

002. naturopathy's absurdity / irrationalism and nonintegrity:

002.a. recently, I'd posted about the pan-naturopathic claim that goes like this:

"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science".

Note: science, science, science.

002.b. now, another pan-naturopathic claim:

that naturopathy is based upon vitalism (see my collection here) [this is a figmentation they ofen hide with coded language], which is an amalgam of vitalism, spiritism and teleology, a purposeful life spirit [truly science-ejected] figmentation held responsible for physiology.

002.c. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and that is a fact so established that it may as well be fossilized.  I'll provide one quote towards that fact, from THE scientific organization of organizations, the National Academies:

John Whitfield's "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (ISBN 0309096812; 2006) states:

"the problem with vitalism [...] was the belief that the explanations for biological phenomena could be found in biology. Instead, biologists should go up the chain of explanations, to chemistry and beyond. They had neglected the physical sciences to their detriment. Why invoke vitalism when so many of the forms in the living world can be explained by simple physical principles? The physics of surface tension, Thompson noted, explain why raindrops are spherical, because this shape has the minimal surface area. Likewise, he argued, surface tension could explain the shape of amoeboid cells, or the spread of sticky droplets over a spider’s web. 'Has the biologist,' Thompson asked, 'fully recognized [...] that the physicist may, and must, be his guide and teacher in many matters regarding organic form? [...] in many of the simpler cases the facts are so well explained by surface tension, that it is difficult to find a place for a conflicting, much less an overriding, force.' Vitalism, in short, was unnecessary [so PAST TENSE UNNECESSARY!]."

002.d. in sum, naturopathy has NO SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY:

when 'that which it isn't is the same as that which it is', run -- particularly when that person is claiming ability to diagnose and treat.

Note: why else do you think such nonsense as applied kinesiology would be espoused by Canadian ND Leung, K. (ND CCNM):

"applied kinesiology is a system that evaluates structural, chemical, and mental aspects of health using manual muscle testing alongside conventional diagnostic methods [hmmm, they must compare well!]. The essential premise of applied kinesiology that is not shared by mainstream medical theory [because it is false] is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a weakness in a specific corresponding muscle, the viscerosomatic relationship [which is bullshit]."

As regards homeopathy, we're told:

"based on the principle of 'like cures like', homeopathic medicine uses minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the self-healing abilities of the body [coded vitalism]."

As regards acupuncture, we're told:

"based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) [vitalism] through the meridian pathways, Asian medicine includes the use of acupuncture and Oriental herbs." 

His bio. says:

"Dr. Kin is licensed to practice naturopathic medicine in Alberta, and is registered with the Alberta Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...and] is also a member of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy (BDDT-N), in Ontario, and the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia (CNPBC) [...and] a member of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) and the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP)."

And CNPBC states in "Prescriptive Authority for Naturopathic Physicians: Objectives, Rationale and a Framework for Regulation: A proposal for The British Columbia Ministry of Health 22 December 2006":

"demand for naturopathic medical services continues to rise as patients seek valid, science-based alternatives [...] guided by scientific, evidence-based approaches to treatment and intervention [...] 'in common possession of scientific facts' [...] 'a shared scientific foundation'."

Note: fascinating, science-based nonscience.  Evidence-based figmentation. Facts that are sectarian phantoms.  A scientific-foundation not the basis of anything in science.

Naturopathy is your brain on bone-headedness.

University of Bridgeport's Science Absurdity, via Brady: AKA,'UB is Not Academically Fraudulent and Abusive Like Them Guys' [While Actually F & A]:

here, I detail a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by University of Bridgeport Health Science Vice Provost Brady criticizing 'them bogus guys', AKA competitors in the realm of 'woo education' [see 001., below]; and, I point out his hypocrisy, per UB's complete bogosity [see 002., below]:

001. David M. Brady

[DC TCC, ND UBCNM; a DC whom I had as an instructor at UB {1998-2002}, and a fellow ND student while he was doing his ND there {I ceased on ethical grounds, he graduated}]

"Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences [etc. {which includes naturopathy ISYN and chiropractic} ...] at the University of Bridgeport [UB]",

states in "Academic and Credential Fraud and Abuse Must Stop" [Dynamic Chiropractic; 2009-06-17 -- vol. 27, iss. 13]:

"dubious and quasi-degrees [...] bogus, nonaccredited, internet-only, graduate and terminal credentials or degrees [...] nonaccredited, substandard degrees [...] fraudulent credentials [...per] various web-based diploma mills and nonaccredited correspondence institutions [...are] a very alarming and destructive trend [...per] an attempt to gain more credibility and attract new patients [...per] 'quasi' credentials [...misleading] the public into believing they are following the advice of a legitimately trained individual [...] these institutions are propagating academic fraud at the expense of their unenlightened students and public safety [...this] demands our immediate attention [...] the curriculum and infrastructure of these institutions simply do not meet acceptable criteria to grant such degrees legitimately [...per the] rigid standards of self and independent review [...of] regionally and specialty-accredited institutions [...] program[s...] licensed by the Department of Higher Education of the home state of the institution and [...] regional accreditation by a federally recognized organization [and Brady lists the Big 6...and mentions, appositely] Council on Naturopathic Medicine (CNME)-accredited naturopathic medicine program graduates are eligible [...for] state registration, certification or licensure."

Note on 001.:

this is like Bernie Madoff being called in to advise on GM's bankruptcy restructuring. See 002. below for UB's "academic and credential fraud" absurdity, in their own words and as analyzed through National Center for Science Education & National Association of Biology Teachers [NCSE-NABT], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and Popular Science Monthly [PSM].

Some of the critical words Brady uses: dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleads, [il]legitimate, academic fraud, [un]acceptable.

My irony meter has exploded: for he has described his own school, UB -- which is merely 'academic fraud in a tuxedo'.

002. UB naturopathy's nonsense position of 'it is what it isn't':

002.a. UB naturopathy's claim of being nonsectarian and scientific:

002.a1. nonsectarian:

I've a collection here.

002.a2. scientific:

I've a collection here. This is part of naturopathy's overarching science claim.

002.b. UB naturopathy's vitalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

002.c. UB naturopathy's supernaturalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

002.d. what NCSE, AAAS, and PSM specifically say about the scientific status of the above 'essentially naturopathic' [it ain't science]:

002.d1: NCSE on vitalism via NABT per "Scientific Integrity":

"science [...has] internally-consistent methods and principles that are well described [...] proposed causes and explanations must be naturalistic [...] the data concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline [...] NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific process. Any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific ways of knowing [...] science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [{like naturopathy!}...] nonscientific notions such as [...] vitalistic theory ['the essentially naturopathic'], therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [...] materials, methods, and explanations that fail to meet these ongoing tests of science are not legitimate components of the discipline and must not be part of a science curriculum [...] the principles and theories of science have been established through repeated experimentation and observation and have been refereed through peer review before general acceptance by the scientific community."

002.d2. AAAS on supernaturalism, per "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues":

"what science is and is not. The scientific method uses observation and logic to develop testable hypotheses. Scientific theories encompass many tested hypotheses and are continually refined as new data is discovered. [But,] no aspect of science can address supernatural questions [p.020...e.g.] creationism and 'intelligent design' deal with supernatural questions that [truly] cannot be addressed through the scientific method. Science and religion ask and answer different questions [p.031...] supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation [...] one reason that modern science has flourished since the seventeenth century is that it has limited itself to natural explanations alone [p.032]."

002.d3: PSM on the sectarian, per "A Minority But Not a Sect":

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved [naturopathy's vitalism & supernaturalism], for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed ['the essentially naturopathic']."

Note on 002.:

UB's "health science" and naturopathy are the most egregious of "academic and credential fraud" I've ever seen, as personally experienced, with the HUGELY science-ejected and nonscientific labeled science, and the HUGELY sectarian labeled nonsectarian -- all wrapped up in a NEASC ND from UB.

Warning to all: UB naturopathy, with their PROFOUNDLY absurd 'something is what it HUGELY isn't', is THE MOST RETARDED OF RETARDATIONS.

UB naturopathy is one OBVIOUSLY 'bogus, accredited, in-residence, graduate and terminal credential and degree'.

UB naturopathy is dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleading, illegitimate, academically fraudulent and unacceptable.

AND, regional accreditation, state- & federal- sanction are, through UB's naturopathy example, merely alternates these days for 'accessories to fraud'.

003. overall note:

I look forward to Dr. Hall's analysis of chiropractic at this year's "Science-Based Medicine" conference, "A Scientific Critique of Chiropractic".

Note on 003.:

and, I will continue to inform the CTAGO and the USDE about UB & FNPLA naturopathy's disgusting academic predation. But, realistically, I'm alerting State and Federal authorities about a fraud they are accessories to.