2006-11-19T12:17:00.000-08:00

[to return to the main document, click here, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/]

02. National Organizations:

the American Council on Science and Health states:

i. [per DeGregori, T.R. (? ?)]

[in "The Deadly Perils of Rejected Knowledge"{09-13-2002}]

"though vitalism (the belief in some form of 'energy' or 'lifeforce' 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,

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.412/healthissue_detail.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041012021013/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.412/healthissue_detail.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.412/healthissue_detail.asp)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this citation, click here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z53sTo0ffY)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_DeGregori_TR_ACSH_PhD_UT_2002)

ii. [per Raso, J. (? ?)]

[in "Should We Try to Drum Up Funding for Studies of Traditional Chinese Medicine?"{12-01-1999}]

"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

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.889/healthissue_detail.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060625210346/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.889/healthissue_detail.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.889/healthissue_detail.asp)

iii. [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,

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.897/healthissue_detail.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041215021129/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.897/healthissue_detail.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.897/healthissue_detail.asp)

iv. [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,

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.896/news_detail.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070204082835/http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.896/news_detail.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.896/news_detail.asp)

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,

http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060211230316/http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click 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,

http://ga1.org/campaign/florida_naturopathy)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060515221331/http://ga1.org/campaign/florida_naturopathy)[vsc 2010-04-02]

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ga1.org/campaign/florida_naturopathy)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this {2006 archived page}, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Naturopathy_s_Fraudulent_Premise_CFI_Hull_2006)

(also click here,

http://ga1.org/center_for_inquiry/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2129064)

(archived here,

)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ga1.org/center_for_inquiry/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2129064)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3RTQxpIOn8)

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,

http://www.cfimichigan.org/pastevents/event/science-and-non-belief-how-chance-and-necessity-explain-our-world/)

(archived here,

)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cfimichigan.org/pastevents/event/science-and-non-belief-how-chance-and-necessity-explain-our-world/)

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,

http://www.cnyskeptics.org/articles/briggs_defrancisco_0205.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070205170216/http://www.cnyskeptics.org/articles/briggs_defrancisco_0205.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cnyskeptics.org/articles/briggs_defrancisco_0205.html)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hqqx_QG5ZUk)

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,

http://livescience.com/humanbiology/naturopathy_license_041118.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305084024/http://livescience.com/humanbiology/naturopathy_license_041118.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, 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,

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-07/aps.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20001018074407/http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-07/aps.html)

(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,
)

ii.

[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:

[regarding 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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp)

(also archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20040609032255/http://www.standardscience.com/nabt_integrity.html)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)

ii.

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

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp#nabt)
(archived here, in part

http://web.archive.org/web/20040603072426/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)

iii.

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,

http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041013173155/http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)

iv.

[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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3213_statements_from_educational_or_8_8_2003.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308105345/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3213_statements_from_educational_or_8_8_2003.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3213_statements_from_educational_or_8_8_2003.asp)

[defunct](for a youtube slideshow citing this source, click here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=imtrQq0Xtuc)

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,

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/conference/ameny/ameny.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20020312021022/http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/conference/ameny/ameny.html)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click 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:

i.[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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5423_59_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050312024451/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5423_59_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5423_59_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here {00.03.43-00.04.35},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpCOAe8dqo)

ii.[per Greene, J.C. (? ?)]

"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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/8789_impressions_of_the_claremont_c_12_30_1899.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060927173817/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/8789_impressions_of_the_claremont_c_12_30_1899.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/8789_impressions_of_the_claremont_c_12_30_1899.asp)

iii.[per Awbrey, F. (? ?), Thwaites, W. (? ?)]

"no divinely precoded plan or mystical 'vital force' is needed. Life and evolution are natural phenomena";

(click here,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2280_issue_04_volume_2_number_2__2_27_2003.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424101756/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2280_issue_04_volume_2_number_2__2_27_2003.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2280_issue_04_volume_2_number_2__2_27_2003.asp)

iv.[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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/store.asp?sectiontype=bookstore&bookcategorynumber=26&categoryname=Origin+of+Life)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308033030/http://ncseweb.org/store.asp?sectiontype=bookstore&bookcategorynumber=26&categoryname=Origin+of+Life)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/store.asp?sectiontype=bookstore&bookcategorynumber=26&categoryname=Origin+of+Life)

v.[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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2324_35_scott_1990_review_i_11_23_2004.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060205045107/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2324_35_scott_1990_review_i_11_23_2004.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2324_35_scott_1990_review_i_11_23_2004.asp)

vi.[per NABT(1995) as web page]

[in "Statements from Educational Organizations [...] National Association of Biology Teachers: Scientific Integrity"]

"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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20010910115943/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp)

(also, click here,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3359_statements_from_educational_o_8_8_2003.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060101214538/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3359_statements_from_educational_o_8_8_2003.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3359_statements_from_educational_o_8_8_2003.asp)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxmPJDtHdh0)

vii.[per Kutschera, U. (? ?)]

[in "Darwinism and Intelligent Design: The New Anti- Evolutionism Spreads in Europe"]

"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,

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol23/3300_darwinism_and_intelligent_desi_12_30_1899.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070216232413/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol23/3300_darwinism_and_intelligent_desi_12_30_1899.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol23/3300_darwinism_and_intelligent_desi_12_30_1899.asp)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-csafBMMvQ)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of that slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/NCSE_Vitalism_Scientific_Integrity_Kutschera_youtube)

[digg.com can't index actual source page {12-22-2007}]

viii.[per NABT in Voices For Evolution, 3rd. ed.]

[in "Voices For Evolution (2008): National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) -- Scientific Integrity"]

[citations regarding the scientific rejection of supernaturalism are under their respective org.s, except for court cases, which are under NCSE and V4E]

"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,

http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Voices_3e.pdf)[vsc 2011-01-27]

(ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2008)

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 Wiki, here: "is the working arm of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the United States National Academy of Engineering"]

i. 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,
)

ii. 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,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/11480.html)

iii. 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,

http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070703215752rn_1/www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22)

(also here,

http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22&print=y)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)

ii.

“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,

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/app-c.html)
(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20021214032139/http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/app-c.html)
(for the archive.org history of this page, 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” {per Haber, J. (? ?)}]

“[per Mayr, E.] 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,

http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=17)
(archived here,
)
(for the archive.org history of this page, 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,
)

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,
)

ii.

[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,
)

Appendix C.02. - No VFS in Sci. - Nat. Org.s