Dr. Don McLeroy is a dentist from Bryan, Texas and the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. Back in early August, McLeroy wrote an opinion piece in which he attempted to drill down to the root of the problem with modern science: its reliance on natural explanations.
If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth-not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.
McLeroy's proposed solution to the problem is a relatively straightforward reconstructive procedure. Citing the definition of science put forth in Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), McLeroy formulated a simple surgical plan: extract the word "natural" from in front of the word "explanations" and fill in the gap with the word "testable."
As a result of this change, Texas students would be free to explore an amalgam of natural and supernatural explanations in their science classes. At least that's what McLeroy would prefer:
Science must limit itself to testable explanations not natural explanations. Then the supernaturalist will be just as free as the naturalist to make testable explanations of natural phenomena. The view with the best explanation of the empirical evidence should prevail.
Unfortunately for Dr. McLeroy, he is apparently unaware that "natural explanations" and "testable explanations" are one and the same in science.
Don't take my word for it. Immediately prior to the definition of science that McLeroy cited, the authors of Science, Evolution, and Creationism wrote this:
Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable - there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing.
Upon closer examination, Dr. McLeroy's proposal turns out to be a lot like brushing your teeth right before eating a meal. In the end, you're right back where you started. Simply replacing the word "natural" with the word "testable" does not fill the explanatory cavities left behind by supernatural explanations.
Indeed, Dr. McLeroy might as well start recommending Twizzlers as an alternative to dental floss.
It would make about as much sense.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
