Saturday, October 04, 2014

[to return to the main document, click here, http://naturocrit.blogspot.com/]
.
.
02. National Organizations:
.
.
the American Council on Science and Health states:
.
.
[in "The Deadly Perils of Rejected Knowledge" (2004)]
.
"[per DeGregori, T.R. (? ?)] though vitalism (the belief in some form of 'energy' or 'life force' at work in all things) has been rejected by the mainstream of science over the last two centuries, this 'rejected knowledge' became central to beliefs such as organic agriculture and alternative medicine [naturopathy]. These beliefs are now part of the contemporary critique of modernity and science";
.
[see DeGregori's "Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate"(2003)(ISBN 0813805139)>here<, p.xv-xvi; p.xvii states: "vitalism and its rejected status in terms of modern scientific knowledge."]
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this citation, click here,
(for a digg.com social bookmark of this, click here,
.
.
.
[in "Should We Try to Drum Up Funding for Studies of Traditional Chinese Medicine?"{12-01-1999}]
.
"[per Raso, J. (? ?)] the trend in American health care has been away from superstition (e.g., religious credulity, belief in magic, or faith in chance), mysticism, vitalism, trial and error, and the physician's relying mainly on his or her own practical medical experience -- and toward the systematic use of the best pertinent scientific evidence [...] TCM [...] its central theoretical concept has long been that of chi -- a mysterious alleged vital force that underlies functioning of body, mind, and spirit";
.
(click here
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per Raso, J. (? ?)]
.
[in "Andrew Weil Is In—Is He Also Far-Out?"{12-01-1999}]
.
"Harvard Medical School alum Andrew Weil, M.D., may be—or at least may have been—among the more publicly critical of [...CAM] methods. For example, in 'Health and Healing: Under-standing Conventional and Alternative Medicine (1983)' -- one of more than a score of books that he has authored, coauthored, edited, or otherwise contributed to -- he cited applied kinesiology—an elaborate, vitalistic system of ostensible diagnosis and treatment whose centerpiece is so-called manual muscle testing—as 'a technique whose ready acceptance disturbs me.' He further wrote: 'applied kinesiology looks more like a parlor trick, and its enthusiastic use by holistic practitioners shows how uncritical they can be in taking up methods whose main appeal is their unorthodox nature";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per DeGregori, T.R. (? ?)]
.
[in "A Review of Alex Avery's 'The Truth About Organic Foods'"{12-15-2006}]
.
"vitalism. In his 'romantic history' of organic agriculture, Avery pursues a thesis I have also advocated (in Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate, for example), that 'vitalism' -- belief in some immeasurable, undefinable 'vital' something that endows food or herbs or homeopathic 'remedies' with beneficial properties -- is at the core of the organic agriculture belief system, and at the core of a variety of allied belief systems, such as various alternative medicine practices, and anti-science and anti-modern movements in general. If vitalism is one's faith, no amount of evidence is likely to change it. Vitalism and 'essentialism' have allowed believers to ignore massive evidence falsifying their cherished beliefs [...] essentialism in biology was the belief that every type of organism has its own unique, immutable essence -- this belief was used as an argument against evolution [...] science, by contrast, employs reductionism -- not talking about a plant's unique plant-spirit but breaking it down into components found elsewhere in nature [...] vitalism, essentialism, and holism leave no room for scientific inquiry or the empirical reality that science helps to clarify and define";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
the Botanical Society of America states:
.
.
[in the ACLU article 'What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design"]
.
“people who oppose evolution [and science...] seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief [speculation, the a priori] for evidence and testing [evidence, the a posteriori...therefore promoting] scientific ignorance in the guise of learning”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
.
.
the Center for Inquiry - Florida states:
.
[an educational nonprofit organization: "polls have shown that large sectors of the public remain scientifically illiterate, even regarding the most elementary scientific facts about our universe. There is, in the public mind, a vast confusion between genuine science and fringe or pseudoscience,""working to promote and defend reason, science, and freedom of inquiry in all areas of human endeavor," "a branch of the Center For Inquiry Transnational," "a global federation committed to science, reason, free inquiry, secularism, and planetary ethics"]
.
.
[in "CFI-FL Naturopathy Licensing Bills in Legislature [...] Subject: Oppose HB 1261 and SB 2678 and Vote NO" {Hull, R.T. (PhD ?)}]
.
"naturopathy is a fraudulent approach to medical causation, depending on the hypothetical 'life force' that supposedly guides healing. No life force has ever been detected, nor has any other supernatural force or being";
.
(here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
(for a digg.com social bookmark of this {2006 archived page}, click here,
.
(also click here,
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,
.
.
Center For Inquiry - Michigan states:
.
.
[in "Science and Non-belief: How Chance and Necessity Explain Our World"]
.
[this is a synopsis of a 2008-01-09 talk by Edis, T. (? ?) compiled by LaRue, C. (? ?) ]
.
"looking into the structure of the universe or our own physical structures yields nothing supernatural [...] the naturalistic stance defends the bottom-up view instead. As Edis had it: complexity, including life and mind, is assembled out of the lifeless and mindless substrate of mere physics, which gives a base description of nature. He showed how particles and natural forces flow up toward chemistry, where molecules are assembled and then to macromolecular life, which is the realm of biology. But all are interdependent on one another and test each other. There is no need -- or even inkling -- of some mysterious life force, magic or supernatural involvement in this process. Life is based purely on what is going on physically; its processes yield to naturalistic scrutiny";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
Central New York Skeptics states:
.
.
[in “Letter to New York State Senator John DeFrancisco on the Licensing of Naturopaths”{per Briggs, E.F. (MD ?)}]
.
“naturopathy is a pseudoscientific system that purports to diagnose and treat disease; indeed, its practitioners go so far as to refer to themselves as naturopathic physicians. However, the philosophic underpinnings, the educational training, and the practice of naturopathy are far removed from the evidence based scientific treatment offered by medical doctors […] naturopathy is rooted in […] vitalism, the belief that biological processes are exempt from known physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths rely on simplistic theories to explain the causes of disease, which they couch in modern terms so as to sound scientific, but which are not supported by scientific study […] naturopathy does not meet the modern standards of scientific evidence and ethical patient care”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,
.
.
the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health states:
.
.
[in "Voice of Reason: Licensing Naturopaths May Be Hazardous to Your Health"{Skolnick, A.A. (? ?)}]
.
“naturopathy is no more based on science than is astrology [...] most naturopathic practices are based on pseudoscientific belief [the actual naturopathic, like VFS...] establishing standards for those who use pseudoscientific practices will not transform them into competent physicians who practice sound, evidence-based medicine [...] those 'who believe that regulation is a substitute for evidence will find that even the most meticulous regulation of nonsense must still result in nonsense’”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism at CFI states:
.
.
[in "CASS Submits Critique of Proposed Degree Program in Naturopathy"(2013-04-17)]
.
"naturopathy itself is based on principles of vitalism that were rejected by the scientifc community centuries ago, as they were inconsistent with modern biology, physics and chemistry";
.
(click here,
.
.
[in "CASS Letter to PEQAB"(2013-0417)]
.
"for naturopathy is based on the foundational principle of vitalism – the idea that living beings are animated by a vital force not found in inanimate nature – and the complete rejection of this principle is the cornerstone of modern biology. For this reason, even those courses which appear to provide standard medical knowledge (anatomy, microbiology) cannot be expected to adhere to what we know about living systems; the curriculum is infused throughout with a failed medieval paradigm";
.
(click here,
.
.
the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal states:
.
.
[in "The New Paranatural Paradigm: Special APS Session Examines Pseudoscience"{Mainsfort, D. (? ?)}]
.
"physicist Victor J. Stenger is a well-published author on subjects relevant to the APS session (Physics and Psychics, The Unconscious Quantum). Long a professor of physics at University of Hawaii, Stenger concluded the session with an appropriate topic: Paraphysics: Physics Misused and Misinterpreted. Many physicists in the audience were eagerly waiting to hear one of their own address this issue. Stenger showed examples of how quantum mechanics is often misinterpreted as implying the reality of extrasensory perception on the cosmic scale. Proponents of alternative medicine, for example, use the terms 'energy' and 'quantum' to suggest a scientific basis for 'energy therapies' and mind-over-matter healing. Bio-energy field therapies such as therapeutic touch, acupuncture, and qigong are often justified with twisted arguments from quantum physics. In truth, he noted, there is no support for the notion that some 'vital force,' or other form of energy exists separate from matter. Stenger said these ancient beliefs had long been disproved, stressing that in modern physics, matter and energy are the same thing and therefore could never connect everything in the universe instantaneously. Quantum fields do not represent a continuous medium, or 'ether.' And no fields of any kind exist in theory or reality without particles, so continuous fields cannot exist. 'Mind and consciousness are not independent of matter. The brain is wired to the body, not to other bodies' he said. Stenger had the audience chuckling several times, as he briefly touched on some of the wackier attempts to misuse physics by such people as Deepak Chopra, Joan Stafantos, and physicist Paul Davies. One member of the audience complained that it is impossible to totally disprove the energy field theory. Perhaps it is there, he said, but we have not yet been able to detect it. Stenger reminded him that an extraordinary burden of proof falls on those who advance any claim that implies the overthrow of well-established scientific principles";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
Euglena Education or Euglena Edu [likely VFS proponent organization, as the document I here specifically quote from outlines Fritjof Capra's 'The Web of Life'] states:
.
.
vitalism: [is] a scientific dead end (so far) [...it] postulates a fifth 'vital force' or 'life force'; no compelling evidence for such a 'life force' exists”;
.
(click here,
http://www.prototista.org/seminars/pdfsummary/C101-preface-ch2.pdf#search)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the Geological Society of America states:
.
.
[in the ACLU article "What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design"]
.
“’creation science,’ [and the like pseudosciences!...] is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world [...] beliefs that entail [the] supernatural [as entities, processes, as a realm...] fall within the domain of religion rather than science [...and therefore] must be excluded from science courses”;
.
(click here,
http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the Marine Biological Laboratory of Wood's Hole states:
.
.
[in "Biological Lectures Delivered at the Marine Biological Laboratory of Wood's Holl In the Summer Session of 1894" (1896)]
.
"there is no warrant for the assertion that life is something different from, and independent of, matter an energy. That is the mistake of vitalism";
.
(ISBN none, too old; publ. Ginn and Co.)
.
.
the National Academy of Sciences states:
.
.
[in their publication 'Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science' (1998)]
.
“the demarcation between science and theology is perhaps easiest, because scientists do not invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works [...i.e.] supernatural beings and forces [like a vfs!...] scientists do not invoke supernatural causation or divine revelation [...i.e.] a metaphysical or supernatural realm inhabited by souls, spirits, angels, or gods [...] such supernatural constructions are beyond the scope of science […] science can say nothing about the supernatural [and invoking the supernatural...] impermissibly endorses religion [...] science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations [...] because science can only use natural explanations and not supernatural ones [with the supernatural and metaphysical both...] nonscientific ways of knowing [...] explanations employing non-naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of valid science”;
.
(click here,
http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/index.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
[in their publication: "The Life Sciences Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs The World of Biological Research Requirements for the Future (1970)]
.
"the theme of this presentation is that life can be understood in terms of the laws that govern and the phenomena that characterize the inanimate, physical universe and, indeed, that living processes can be described only in the language of chemistry and physics. Until the laws of physics and chemistry had been elucidated, it was not possible even to formulate most of the important, penetrating questions concerning the nature of life. For centuries, students of biology, in considering the diversity of life, its seeming distinction from inanimate phenomena, and its general inexplicability, found it necessary, in their imaginations, to invest all living objects with a mysterious life force, 'vitalism.' But in the late eighteenth century, Lavoisier and Laplace were able to show, within the considerable limits of error of the methods available to them, that the recently formulated laws of conservation of energy and mass were valid also in a living guinea pig. The endeavors of thousands of life scientists over the succeeding two centuries have gone far to document the thesis thus begun. Living phenomena are indeed intelligible in physical terms";
.
(click here,
http://fermat.nap.edu/booksearch.php?term=vitalism&isbn=ARC01770X)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the National Association of Biology Teachers states:
.
.
[in "Scientific Integrity"(1995)]
.
"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 [...] nonscientific notions such as [...] vitalistic theory, 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”;
(click here,
(also archived here,
.
.
regarding science (1980), “national association of biology teachers [...endorses] the following tenets of science, evolution, and biology education [...per] the nature and methods of science [...particularly!!!!] science does not base theories on untestable dogmatic proposals or beliefs [...scientifically] a theory is an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes [...] to understand nature and natural phenomena [as opposed to the supernatural or the metaphysical...these] theories are ultimately proposed to explain observations and inferences, predict consequences, and solve scientific problems [...per] questions, proposing and testing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events [...with] inferences [...as parsimonious!] logical conclusions based on observations [...] teaching the principles and mechanisms of evolution across the biology curriculum -- from molecular and cellular to organismal and ecological levels -- promotes a rational and coherent scientific account of biology [as opposed to teleological, creationistic, vitalistic...] science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach religious beliefs [the dogmatic, untestable -- beliefs] in the science classroom. To contrast science with religion is not the role of science or science education [more so from 'phil. of sci.'...] science teachers can, and often do, hold devout religious beliefs [...] students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundations of evolution[they are not conflated]”;
.
(click here, all
.
.
regarding supernaturalism, “experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings [or entities...] are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
.
.
[in "National Association of Biology Teachers: Scientific Integrity"{"Revision adopted by the Board of NABT 03-15-1995"}]
.
"the credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligation, to promote this integrity in life science education. 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";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[defunct](for a youtube slideshow citing this source, click here,
.
.
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching states :
.
.
[paper is “College Student's Conceptions of the Nature of Biological Knowledge: Implications for Conceptual Change” (Gloria Ameny, Ron Good, Dominique Homberger, and John Larkin, 1999)]
.
“understanding science as a way of knowing is an important prerequisite for science literacy. Scientific literacy implies that an individual is able to identify and differentiate scientific from non-scientific issue [...] a biologically literate individual employs logical reasoning about natural and biological phenomena. Such a person bases her arguments on facts, scientific principles, theories, and observed evidence. Such an individual must, therefore, have an adequate understanding of the nature of science [...] biological knowledge is empirical. Observations of nature and experimentation with nature are the basis of knowledge. Knowledge validation or refutation should be based on [...] nature without appeal to supernatural explanations [...] students who do not have adequate understanding of the nature of biological knowledge use prescientific explanations to describe biological processes [...] the terminology prescientific conceptions is used in relation to scientifically inaccurate explanations provided by students to describe biological phenomena [...i.e.] teleology [...] the belief that events in nature are directed by a predetermined purpose [...and] vitalism [...] a 'mystical non-measurable' force exists and directs all changes in living organisms”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
.
.
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM] of the National Institutes of Health [NIH] of the Department of Health and Human Services [a Federal Government Agency] states:
.
.
[in "An Introduction to Naturopathy"]
.
"a number of beliefs and practices in naturopathy do not follow the scientific approach of conventional medicine";
.
(click here,
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the National Center for Science Education states:
.
[their early 1990s page archive is here,
.
.
[in "Reports of the NCSE" (2015)]
.
"Osborn's notions about evolutionary progress, vitalism, and teleology are long dustbinned [...] this idea drew me back to a college humanities class I attended about 1953, in which a major reading was French metaphysician Henri Bergson's 1907 classic, Creative Evolution. Building on earlier ideas going back as least as far as Aristotle, Bergson argued that the natural processes underlying evolution are supplemented — or perhaps even driven — by a nonmaterial élan vital (of which more later). Whatever it may be, élan vital adds contingency to what he saw (erroneously) as an otherwise deterministic pathway. Bergson also puts heavy weight on the idea that intuition is in some sense a path to knowledge superior to reason — an argument that can easily be directed to stress the importance of faith (though this was not Bergson's intent) [...] there is much in this view to attract the "intelligent design" creationist. What is more, there is practical utility in the slippery possibilities of translating Bergson's key term élan vital. The rather odd French word élan can be translated into English as force, or impetus, or impetuousness, or burst, or ardor, or enthusiasm, or vivacity, or spirit [...]  I was still more surprised when a discussion of Bergson's élan vital turned up recently in a publication by young-earth creationist (YEC) Jerry Bergman (2007) [...]     There has probably been no more illustrious proponent of a metaphysical vitalism than Henri Bergson. Thanks to an engaging style and a metaphorical dialectic bare of logic but not of poetry, his philosophy achieved immediate success. It seems to have fallen into almost complete discredit today [1970]; but in my youth no one stood a chance of passing his baccalaureate examination unless he had read Creative Evolution.    Evolution, identified with the élan vital itself, can ... have neither final nor efficient causes. Man is the supreme stage at which evolution has arrived, without having sought or foreseen it. ... [R]ational intelligence is an instrument of knowledge specially designed for mastering inert matter but utterly incapable of apprehending life's phenomena. Only instinct, consubstantial with the élan vital, can give a direct, global insight into them. Every analytical statement about life is therefore meaningless, or rather irrelevant. (p 26) The concept of an élan vital, comprehension of which is approachable by human intuition but not by reason, has an evident appeal to the ID creationist. Moreover, unlike the "intelligent designer", élan vital is depersonified — perhaps sufficiently to pass muster in the courts as a nonreligious concept. And yet for those who wish it so, élan vital can be seen as a divine property or even a divine manifestation.But what about K–12 science education? The opinions of the scientific community may weigh less in this matter than the response of the courts to the simple question: Does Bergsonian élan vital carry a religious message? As I have noted, there is nothing legally wrong with teaching scientific nonsense in public school classrooms, however repellent the idea may be to those concerned with providing the next generation with a good background in the sciences. I think there is a pretty good chance that Bergson, Teilhard, and perhaps other vitalists will provide a foundation for the efforts to insert vitalism as an entrée to those classrooms that can carry religious creationist views on its coattails. References [...] Examined on positivism for his PhD, he was then sent off to explore the natural history of New Guinea, taking with him Hans Driesch's Philosophie der Organischen and Henri Bergson's L'Evolution Creatrice, both of which he rejected as being "vitalistic" [...]Two basic ontological principles, vitalism and cosmic teleology, says Mayr, have prevented the acceptance of biology as an autonomous science. Vitalism died slowly from lack of experimental confirmation and because of progress in genetics and molecular biology. Darwin exploded cosmic teleology with his theory of natural selection. By the 1930s–40s, "no competent biologist believed in any causation of evolution or of the world as a whole," but belief in this sort of causation lingered on among philosophers like Whitehead, Bergson, and Polanyi. Evolution, says Mayr, is not teleological, although it does lead to "progress and improvement" through "emergent properties" that are empirically observable, not the result of a metaphysical principle such as Bergson's élan vital"; 
.
.
.
[in "Creationism: Intellectual Origins, Cultural Context, and Theoretical Diversity" (2015)]
.
"Dooyeweerd claims that the mechanist-vitalist debate can be resolved by recognition of this hierarchy of God-given natural laws [...] modern evolutionists deny belief in vitalism, but attribute animistic powers to other forces";
.
.
.
[in "Exhibit 'A'" (2014)]
.
"'mechanism' is 'a philosophical doctrine that holds that natural processes and especially the processes of life are mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry — compare teleology, vitalism'";
.
.
.
[in "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" Vol 33, No 1 (2013)]
.
"vitalism vs mechanism";
.
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ncse.com/files/pub/RNCSE/33/1-All.pdf)
.
.
[in "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" vol 32, no 3 (2012)]
.
"my personal opinion is that the opposition is deeply philosophical in nature and dates back to late 19th Century disputes over evolution and also to the early 20th Century' mechanism-vitalism' debate";
.
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ncse.com/files/pub/RNCSE/32/3-All.pdf)
.
.
[in "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" (vol. 24 iss. 5, 2004) (2010)]
.
"two basic ontological principles, vitalism and cosmic teleology, says Mayr, have prevented the acceptance of biology as an autonomous science. Vitalism died slowly from lack of experimental confirmation and because of progress in genetics and molecular biology. Darwin exploded cosmic teleology with his theory of natural selection [...] evolution, says Mayr, is not teleological, although it does lead to 'progress and improvement' through 'emergent properties' that are empirically observable, not the result of a metaphysical principle such as Bergson's élan vital";
.
(click here,
https://web.archive.org/web/20100428135643/http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1912)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[in "Appendices: Science; Transitional Fossils; and Embryos" (2008)]
.
"by now it should be clear that vitalistic and supernatural hypotheses that invariably postulate vague and amorphous mechanisms whose workings are beyond human comprehension are untestable and uninformative and hence not scientific. In fact they are not even explanations, but statements of unsolvable mysteries beyond the powers of scientific investigation";
.
(click here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per Sonleitner, F.J. (? ?)]
.
vitalistic and supernatural hypotheses that invariably postulate vague and amorphous mechanisms whose workings are beyond human comprehension are untestable and uninformative and hence not scientific. In fact they are not even explanations, but statements of unsolvable mysteries beyond the powers of scientific investigation”;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here {00.03.43-00.04.35},
.
.
[per Greene, J.C. (? ?)]
.
[in "Impressions of the Claremont Conference and Ernst Mayr" (2004)]
.
"two basic ontological principles, vitalism and cosmic teleology, says Mayr, have prevented the acceptance of biology as an autonomous science. Vitalism died slowly from lack of experimental confirmation and because of progress in genetics and molecular biology. Darwin exploded cosmic teleology with his theory of natural selection. By the 1930s–40s, 'no competent biologist believed in any causation of evolution or of the world as a whole,' but belief in this sort of causation lingered on among philosophers like Whitehead, Bergson, and Polanyi. Evolution, says Mayr, is not teleological, although it does lead to 'progress and improvement' through 'emergent properties' that are empirically observable, not the result of a metaphysical principle such as Bergson's élan vital";
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per Awbrey, F. (? ?), Thwaites, W. (? ?)]
.
"no divinely precoded plan or mystical 'vital force' is needed. Life and evolution are natural phenomena";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per their bookstore]
.
"'Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative.' Christian de Duve [Nobel prize-winning biochemist].Dedicated simply to life, Vital Dust 'seeks to retrace the four-billion-year history of life on Earth, from the first biomolecules to the human mind and beyond' in a wholly naturalistic framework, eschewing vitalism, finalism or teleology, and creationism";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[per Scott, E.C. (? ?) (1990)]
.
"selling the supernatural [...] the book [Of Pandas and People] attempts to convince the student (and teacher) that a basically supernatural view can be made scientific through word manipulation and conflation with scientific concepts. Thus, the Argument from Design is dressed up in information theory and passed off as science. This selling of the supernatural is pertinent to understanding why this book is not science, but pseudoscience [...a book] without scientific or pedagogical merit, and it has no place in the science classroom";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
.
[in "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction Second Edition" (2014)]
.
"[per Scott, E.C. (? ?) (1990)] from the ancient Greeks up through the early nineteenth century, people from European cultures believed that living things possessed an elan vital or vital spirit, a quality that sets them apart from dead things and nonliving things such as minerals or water. Organic molecules, in fact, were thought to differ from other molecules because of the presence of this spirit. This view was gradually abandoned in science when more detailed study on the structure and functioning of living things repeatedly failed to discover any evidence for such an elan vital [...] vitalistic ways of thinking persist in some East Asian philosophies, such as in the concept of chi, but they have been abandoned in Western science for lack of evidence and because they do not lead to a better understanding of nature";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
[in "Creation / Evolution" (1995 Winter)]
.
"[per Alters, B.J. (? ?)] various creationist positions were advocated without reference to scientific data [...including] vitalism - 'something inherent in life that is not material'";
.
(click here,
.
.
[per NABT]
.
[in "National Association of Biology Teachers: Scientific Integrity"(1995)]
.
"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";
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
(also, click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,
.
.
[in "Darwinism and Intelligent Design: The New Anti- Evolutionism Spreads in Europe"]
.
"[per Kutschera, U. (? ?)] modern scientists successfully explain the real world without reference to miracles, 'intelligent designers,' or other products of human imagination. If we were to admit 'intelligent designers,' 'vital forces,' and other spiritual entities, modern science would soon cease to exist";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,
(for a digg.com social bookmark of that slideshow, click here,
[digg.com can't index actual source page {12-22-2007}]
.
.
[per NABT in Voices For Evolution, 3rd. ed.]
.
[in "Voices For Evolution (2008): National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) -- Scientific Integrity"]
.
"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]";
.
(click here,
.
(ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2008)
.
.
[in "Creationism: Intellectual Origins, Cultural Context, and Theoretical Diversity" (1989)]
.
"[McIver, T.A. (? ?) writes] modern evolutionists deny belief in vitalism";
.
.
.
the National Council Against Health Fraud states:
.
.

[in “NCAHF Fact Sheet on Naturopathy”{per Jarvis, W.T. (PhD ?)]
.
“naturopathy is an ideologic, not a scientific, system […] non-medical practitioners, including many NDs reject the idea that germs per se cause disease. They believe that vitalistic forces are ultimately responsible. Vitalism is ‘a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces’ -- which denotes a paranormal ‘life force.’ Vitalists are generally not only nonscientific, but antiscientific because they abhor the reductionism (v. holism), materialism (v. etherealism) and mechanistic (v. mystical) causal processes of science. Its belief in vitalism (vis medicatrix naturae) […quoting Snider, P. (ND ?)] ‘orthodox medicine assumes that the world is chaotic, mechanistic. We believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible. Chiropractors have adjustments, acupuncturists have needles, we have vis medicatrix naturae. Our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith. Our power and our responsibility is to bring the life force into the light’ [Snider, P. 1991 AANP Convention, Into the Light. Townsend Letter for Doctors, April, 1992, p.261]”;
.
(click here,
http://www.ncahf.org/articles/j-n/naturo.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
National Research Council states:
.
.
.
per [Committee on Frontiers at the Interface of Computing and Biology]
.
[in “Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology”(2005){ed.s Wooley, J.C. (? ?), and Lin, H.S. (? ?)]
.
“for many thousands of years, a doctrine known as vitalism held that the stuff of life was qualitatively different from that of nonlife and, consequently, that living organisms were made of a separate substance than nonliving things or that some separate life force existed to animate the materials that composed life. While this belief no longer holds sway today (except perhaps in bad science fiction movies) [p.034]”;
.
(ISBN 030909612X)
,
(click here,
http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/11480.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
per [Committee on the Mathematical Sciences in Genome and Protein Structure Research]
.
[in "Calculating the Secrets of Life: Contributions of the Mathematical Sciences to Molecular Biology"(1995){ed.s Lander, E.S. (? ?), and Waterman, M.S. (? ?)}]
.
“in vitro […] assays were accomplished back in the days when biologists were still grappling with the notion of vitalism. Originally, it was though that life and biochemical reactions did not obey the known laws of chemistry and physics. Such vitalism held sway until about 1900 [p.003]”;
.
(ISBN 0309075025 )
.
(click here, http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/2121.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
.
 per [Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy]
.
[in "The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs The World of Biological Research Requirements for the Future"(19070){per National Academy of Sciences}]
.
“for centuries, students of biology, in considering the diversity of life, it seems distinction from inanimate phenomena, and its general inexplicability, found it necessary, in their imaginations, to invest all living objects with a mysterious life force, ‘vitalism.’ But in the eighteenth century, Lavoisier and Laplace were able to show, within the considerable limits of error of the methods available to the, that the recently formulated laws of conservation of energy and [p.032] mass were valid also in a living guinea pig […] living phenomena are indeed intelligible in physical terms [p.033]”;
.
(ISBN ?) 
(click here, http://newton.nap.edu/booksearch.php?term=vitalism&isbn=ARC01770X&submit.x=20&submit.y=11&submit=Search)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the National Science Teachers Association states:
.
.
[in "NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of Science"]
.
“the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principle product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [...] the National Science Teachers Association endorses the proposition that science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in sciences classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [...] a number of shared values and perspectives [...] characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world [...as well as] observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [...] science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge” ;
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
(also here,
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22&print=y)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
“the nature of science and scientific theories [...] the methodology of science emphasizes the logical testing of alternate explanations of natural phenomena against empirical data [...per] theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power [...] because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes [...] insistence on the search for natural causes [...] it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations. Similarly, science is precluded from making statements about supernatural forces because these are outside its provenance”;
.
(click here,
.
.
the New England Skeptics Society podcast "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" states:
.
.
[in “Skepticast #122: 11/20/2007”]
.
“[per S. Novella, MD at 00.16.06] there are lots of unaccredited schools giving out really worthless alternative medicine degrees and even in those states where naturopaths are licensed it still doesn't mean anything because it is not a scientific discipline. Having a degree in nonsense is no assurance”;
.
(click here,
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=122)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
the New York Academy of Sciences states:
.
.
[interviewing Mayr, E., in “The Autonomy of Biology: How the Complexity of Living Systems Makes Biology Unique” (2007)]
.
“[per Haber, J. (? ?), Mayr, E. states] the refutation of certain erroneous basic assumptions [as regards the scientific understanding of life…] under this heading, I deal with the support for certain basic ontological principles that later were shown to be erroneous. Biology could not be recognized as a science of the same rank as physics as long as most biologists accepted certain basic explanatory principles not supported by the laws of the physical sciences and eventually found to be invalid. The two major principles here involved are vitalism and a belief in cosmic teleology. As soon as it had been demonstrated that these two principles are invalid and, more broadly, that none of the phenomena of the living world is in conflict with the natural laws of the physicalists, there was no longer any reason for not recognizing biology as a legitimate autonomous science equivalent to physics […as regards teh discarded, i.e.] vitalism. The nature of life, the property of being living, has always been a puzzle for philosophers. Descartes tried to solve it by simply ignoring it. An organism is really nothing but a machine, he said. And other philosophers, particularly those with a background in mathematics, logic, physics, and chemistry, tended to follow him and operated as if there were no difference between living and inanimate matter. But this did not satisfy most naturalists. They were convinced that in a living organism certain forces are active that do not exist in inanimate nature. They concluded that, just as the motion of planets and stars is controlled by an occult, invisible force called gravitation by Newton, the movements and other manifestations of life in organisms are controlled by an invisible force, Lebenskraft or vis vitalis. Those who believed in such a force were called vitalists. The nature of life has always been a puzzle for philosophers. Vitalism was popular from the early seventeenth century to the early twentieth century. It was a natural reaction to the crass mechanism of Descartes. Henri Bergson (1859-1941) and Hans Driesch (1867-1941) were prominent vitalists in the early 20th century (note 2). The end of vitalism came when it no longer could find any supporters. Two causes were largely responsible for this: first, the failure of literally thousands of unsuccessful experiments conducted to demonstrate the existence of a Lebenskraft; second, the realization that the new biology, with the methods of genetics and molecular biology, was able to solve all the problems for which scientists traditionally had invoked the Lebenskraft. In other words, the proposal of a Lebenskraft had simply become unnecessary. It would be ahistorical to ridicule vitalism. When one reads the writings of some of the leading vitalists like Driesch, one is forced to agree with him that many of the basic problems of biology simply cannot be solved by Cartesian philosophy, in which the organism is considered nothing but a machine. The developmental biologists, in particular, asked some very challenging questions. For example, how can a machine regenerate lost parts, as many kinds of organisms are able to do? How can a machine replicate itself? How can two machines fuse into a single one like the fusion of two gametes to produce a zygote? The critical logic of the vitalists was impeccable. But all their efforts to find a scientific answer to the so-called vitalistic phenomena were failures. Generations of vitalists labored in vain to find a scientific explanation for the Lebenskraft until it finally became quite clear that such a force simply does not exist. That was the end of vitalism. Teleology. Teleology is the second invalid principle that had to be eliminated from biology before it qualified as a science equivalent to physics. Teleology deals with the explanation of natural processes that seem to lead automatically to a definite end or goal. To explain the development of the fertilized egg to the adult of a given species, Aristotle invoked a fourth cause, the causa finalis. Eventually, one invoked this cause for all phenomena in the cosmos that led to an end or goal. Kant in his Critique of Judgment at first tried to explain the biological world in terms of Newtonian natural laws but was completely unsuccessful in this endeavor. Frustrated, he ascribed all Zweckmdssigkeit (adaptedness) to teleology. This was, of course, no solution. A widely supported school of evolutionists, for instance, the so-called orthogenesists, invoked teleology to explain all progressive evolutionary phenomena. They believed that in living nature there is an intrinsic striving ('orthogenesis') toward perfection. Here belongs also Lamarck's theory of evolution, and orthogenesis had many followers before the evolutionary synthesis. Alas, no evidence for the existence of such a teleological principle could ever be found, and the discoveries of genetics and paleontology eventually totally discredited cosmic teleology”;
.
(click here,
.
.
no-naturopaths.org states:
.
i.
.
[in "What is Naturopathy?"]
.
"naturopathy is based on 'vitalism' an ancient belief that some sort of unidentified and unexplained 'energy' animates all living things and is responsible for health and disease. Before modern science figured out the basic biology of human life, vitalism was used to explain aspects of human functioning that were not understood at the time. As new discoveries in science and medicine eliminated the need for dependence on vitalism as an explanation, it disappeared from scientific thinking.  There is no evidence that this 'vital force' exists but naturopaths regard this shortcoming as irrelevant [...] 'doctors of naturopathic medicine' also practice in accordance with the discredited notion of vitalism and use nonsensical treatments such as homeopathy. Their education consists mainly in the use of unproven, and often disproven, treatments such as herbs, and diagnoses of diseases that are soundly rejected by modern medicine, like 'chronic yeast overgrowth.'  These diagnoses rely on silly tests like 'hair mineral analysis' [...] naturopathic doctors or naturopathic physicians make the absurd claim that have the equivalent education and training as medical doctors and the ability to practice as primary care physicians with the same competency.  They claim they can diagnose diseases and treat them with the same proficiency as primary care physicians, including the use of drugs. This is belied by their education and actual practice";
.
(click here,
.
ii.
.
[in "Naturopathic Practice"]
.
"[citing Dr. Atwood] naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles";
.
(click here,
.
.
the Paleontological Society states:
.
“because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes [...] creationism [and the like] is religion [...] because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested”;
.
(click here,
http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
sciencebasedmedicine.org states:
.
.
[in "Bodytalk: Medical Theater" (2012-12-20)]
.
"[via Scott Gavura] because to admit AK is nonsense would be tacit agreement that vitalism is bunk. Applied kinesiology [...] it’s a extension of vitalistic thoughts about the body [...]  based on some form of mysterious, undefined energy. This energy is vitalism: the pre-scientific belief that living objects differ from non-living objects because of some sort of 'vital force' or energy fieldVitalism was a scientific placeholder, which was dropped from our understanding of the world when it was shown to be unnecessary. Alternative medicine practices that are not based on science, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic and acupuncture remain permeated with vitalistic thinking [...] Bodytalk has all the characteristics of pseudoscience. It’s one example of a family of 'energy healing' practices with roots in applied kinesiology which still reflects its origins in vitalistic thinking";
.
(click here,

.
[in "'Integrative medicine'”: A Brand, Not a Specialty"(2011-08-15)]
.
""[via David Gorski] once upon a time, there was quackery [...] methodologies were based either on prescientific vitalism";
.
(click here,
.
.
scienceblogs.com states:
.
.
@Respectful Insolence
.
[in "Claiming to be Able to Cure Cancer with Magic Water"(2013-04-25)]
.
"[via David Gorski] it’s amazing how deeply steeped in prescientific vitalism naturopathy is";
.
(click here,
.
.
skeptic.com states:
.
.
[in a series by Mike McRae:]
.
[in "A History of Life’s Vital Essence (Part 1): Fire and Gods" (2015)]
.
"how does something grow in complexity as its components seem to grow in simplicity?  The answer wouldn’t come for half a century. In the meantime, an old fashioned belief in ghostly forces would have one last opportunity to prove itself worthy of being considered scientific [...] since the dawn of material philosophy, there have been those who have regarded life as a force or a material in its own right [...] as such, for movement to occur, a soul must be involved [...] since the beginning of material philosophy there have been attempts to define life as an addition of an element or force rather than as an emergence from a complex combination of relevant properties [...] at its heart, teleology implies an outcome which is pre-ordained by intention. Knock-on effects and natural outcomes still occur, but teleological causes are different.  Since there can be no formal cause without a purpose, there must be some agency desiring an unrealised future [...] Aristotle’s causes provided a perfect system for centuries of theology that would come to underpin the question on life and its properties";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

[in "A History of Life’s Vital Essence (Part 2): Vital Thinking" (2015)]
.
"the argument over whether or not life could be described through studies of non-living materials alone heated up over the 16th and 17th centuries. Not only was knowledge in chemistry rapidly developing thanks to the tradition of the alchemist, but so was complexity in engineering [...] reducing the sum properties of the living form to the actions of chemicals and mechanical parts was conceivable given the beauty of the clumsy attempts of engineers to make dolls dance and play instruments [...] yet his theology and sheer incredulity made it impossible for him to see how the mind could also result from physics and chemistry alone. 'There is a vast difference between the mind and the body,' he said [...] dualism meant one could focus on the chemistry and physics of physiology, leaving matters of the mind and root causes of illness and reproduction to more spiritual thinkers [...]  the German physician George Ernst Stahl [...] was born into a Lutheran sect in the late 17th century. Stahl indeed held a hypothesis describing why some materials lived and others didn’t — a holistic, vital force or ‘anima’ caused organic materials to move and change, and stopped them from decomposing. Deprived of this force, life would lie still and rot [...] Stahl adjusted chemist Johann Becher’s model of combustion to come up with phlogiston, a significant chemical theory of its time that would later be replaced by Antoine Lavoisier’s oxidation theory. In short, while Stahl’s beliefs on a biological force would be criticised and dismissed by many great minds, he was remarkably influential and played a key role in the history of chemistry and physiology.  In 1747 the physiologist Albrecht von Haller applied Stahl’s anima theory in describing how the muscles of a body moved according to something he referred to as innate impatience [...] it was a common theme amongst vitalists to claim that there was a purpose or desire innate within the matter which drives it to move, or grow, or sense changes in the environment [...] an impetus that wasn’t unlike Aristotle’s teleological causes [...] in spite of this binary state of vitalist versus mechanist beliefs, there were hybrid theories that attempted to reconcile the two. Montpellier physiologist Theophile de Bordeau believed [etc...] making his theory largely vitalistic in concept.  It was during the mid-18th century that the divide between the mechanists and the vitalists reached its zenith. Nowhere was this better represented than in the contrast between the scientific communities of Paris and the university city of Montpellier. In Paris, biology was largely viewed as the result of physical processes. Physiology was primarily the result of hydraulics and fibres, with no claim of knowing what fundamental force drove them. In Montpellier, a proud tradition of ‘body economics’ had gained dominance, where health and disease was discussed in terms of harmony and holism, and vital essences governed the process out of reach of mathematical models and empiricism";
.
(click here,
(archived here,
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
.
[in "A History of Life’s Vital Essence (Part 3): The Twilight of Vitalism" (2015)]
.
"vitalism died a death of a thousand cuts. There was no single experiment, no one find that falsified the idea. Rather it was a shadow that shrank as the light of discovery grew [...] decades later the French chemist and pioneer in microbiology, Louis Pasteur, settled the question on whether there was a force which could spontaneously cause basic, non-living materials to generate simple life forms [...] yet in the late 19th century one tiny bastion of vitalism held tight [...] Hans Driesch [...] in his book The History and Theory of Vitalism, he cites a force which he describes as a passive form of teleology. He borrows Aristotle’s term for a tendency towards an outcome—'entelechy' [...] entelecheia relates to this concept, being a tendency to reach a particular end point. As such, vitalism was not dissimilar to energy, only it had a goal in mind—the differentiation of cells to produce a living thing. Driesch’s theory was the last heroic stand of vitalism. It would take half a century for it to be once again superseded; this time thanks to a man better known for his dead-but-alive cats [...] Schrödinger’s aperiodic crystal left vitalism nowhere scientific to hide. However, the second half of the century would see a significant resurgence in vitalist traditions such as homeopathy and chiropractic within various counter-cultures, not to mention the rise of creationism and intelligent design [...] fringe beliefs in vitalism will perpetuate for much the same reason the theory existed in the first place: it serves as a counter to reductionist philosophies; it compliments other supernatural beliefs; and, it eases the discomfort of lacking a more convincing hypothesis. Yet as far as the scientific community was concerned, life’s mysteries simply were no longer mysterious enough to leave room for a ghostly force.";
.
(archived here,
.
.
[in "Ayurvedic Medicine:  It’s Been Around for a Thousand Years, but Does it Work?" (2013)]
.
"[by way of Marc Carrier] practitioners of an ancient Indian health care system claim to be able to treat cancer, epilepsy, schizophrenia, psoriasis, ulcers, asthma, malaria and many other diseases. They do this by balancing invisible vital forces that cannot be seen, touched, measured, or quantified in any way [...] revealed to the Hindu deity Brahma, Ayurveda, which roughly translates as 'life knowledge', is an ancient vitalist system similar to the archaic European theory of humors, which was supplanted by evidence-based science in the 19th century [...] the three Ayurvedic vital forces or doshas are (1) vata, the impulse working the nervous system; (2) pitta, bile for digestion and other metabolic processes; and (3) kapha, supplying nutrition to the arterial system. Each dosha is composed of one or two of the five basic elements: space, air, fire, water and earth. Ayurvedic medicine teaches that good health is achieved when these forces are in perfect balance";
.
(click here,
.
.
the Society for Experimental Biology [UK] states:
.
.
[in "Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology"(1947)]
.
"nowadays, vitalism is generally discredited [p.081]";
.
(ISBN none, at books.google.com)
.
.
UK-Skeptics’ Jackson, J. (? ?) and Bailey, P. (? ?) state:
.
.
[in "Chiropractic"]
.
"'a metaphysical belief and as such is not testable or scientific: it is a matter of faith,' when they cite the example of chiropractic, which like naturopathy 'has its roots in mysticism and vitalism […being] a system based on a mystical life-force […and] 19th century thinking” and they directly question “the worth of a degree in a subject that cannot prove [provide scientific evidence concerning] its basic tenet”;
.
(click here,
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
[in "The Mystical Nature of Alternative Medicine"]
.
"the mystical nature of alternative medicine [...] qi, vital energy [...] acupuncture, homeopathy, and chiropractic [...] the belief in vitalism [...] is the concept that life cannot be explained by any physical mechanism. Before modern science showed otherwise, living matter was thought to be different to [from] non-living matter. The 'former' was believed to contain a 'life force' or 'spark of life' that is separate from its physical existence. The 'vital energy' has been the explanation for the existence of a soul. In the pantheistic worldview, vital energy is thought of as a natural life force that pervades nature or the universe. Pantheism (where God is the universe, rather than being separate from it) is a feature of many eastern religions ad is also embraced by the new-age movement. The proposed life force goes under names like: 'qi' in Chinese medicine, 'vital energy' is homeopathy, 'innate intelligence in chiropractic, energies in new age alternative spirituality, and prana in Indian medicine. The names are different but the concept is exactly the same [...] vital energy has never been detected or shown to exist [...] despite the multitude of alternative treatments available [...] most of them adhere to the model stated above. Illness is caused by a disturbance to the body's vital energy and the cure is to restore balance to the flow of vital energy. This is a very naive and simplistic model on which to base a healthcare system [...] the mystical, undetectable flow of vital energy”;
.
(click here,
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_mystical_nature_of_alternative_medicine.php)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)
.
.
.