Posted on 09/21/2005 2:55:25 AM PDT by SeaLion
Intelligent design? Not on this campus
Talk of evolutionary challenge absent from Penn courses; most want to keep it that way By Trang Do September 21, 2005
Penn offers over 30 courses focused on evolution, and countless others cover the theory in some respect. What Penn does not offer, however, is a course exclusively covering intelligent design.
As the movement to incorporate the religion-based explanation of life into classrooms across the country has gained momentum, Penn professors have been largely resistant to teaching the concept.
The absence of intelligent design -- which makes the assertion that certain features of an organism are so complex that they might be the work of an "intelligent designer" rather than the result of a process such as natural selection -- from most Penn syllabi is perfectly fine with Michael Weisberg.
Weisberg, a Philosophy professor, and Paul Sniegowski, a Biology professor, have been particularly outspoken against the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Weisberg says that teaching intelligent design in science courses is misleading to students.
"I think it is extremely inappropriate to teach it in biology classes," Weisberg said. "There is little to no published literature backing its claims."
"Teaching intelligent design in a science course is like the equivalent of teaching alchemy in a chemistry class," he added.
Janet Monge, an Anthropology professor who teaches "Introduction to Human Evolution," makes her students aware that there is a debate, but she does not teach intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.
Many Penn students, like College senior Nina Mirarchi, are on the fence when it comes to intelligent design.
"I don't know that I know enough about intelligent design to make a fair judgment about it," she said. "I would say that it is a discipline, but not really a science."
But Mirarchi, who is active with Penn's Newman Center -- a Catholic hub on campus -- did not express her beliefs regarding evolution.
Michael Uram, a conservative rabbi trained at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and the associate director of Hillel, does not believe that intelligent design will ever make its way into science courses at Penn.
"I don't think intelligent design belongs in the classroom at Penn, not because it is wrong, but because it rests not on theory or fact that can be tested, but on faith alone," he said.
Monge called the intelligent-design movement "a little blip in a particular agenda" and said that in its current state, intelligent design "is not important enough to demand an entire class."
But at other schools in Pennsylvania, professors have been devoting entire classes to the idea.
Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., is one of intelligent design's strongest proponents.
Behe, who received his doctorate in biochemistry from Penn in 1978, teaches a course that covers intelligent design, entitled "Popular Arguments on Evolution."
Behe says that many of his students enjoy the course, which is only offered every other year.
"Students that take the course like it -- they wouldn't be taking it unless they were interested in the subject," Behe said.
Not everyone, however, is a fan of Behe's teachings.
"Many of my colleagues here disagree with intelligent design," Behe admits. "But everyone agrees that I have the right to speak my mind about it."
Sniegowski says that teaching intelligent design as science undermines the value of the scientific method.
"Science has made progress by taking things that could not be explained and working very hard to try to explain them," Sniegowski said.
"Teaching intelligent design is doing a tremendous disservice as teachers and scientists to our students," he added.
Monge, although she does not agree with intelligent design, feels that as a teacher, it is important to make sure that students are able to understand and seek out the necessary information to make their own judgments.
"I would say that it is kind of a responsibility to not just teach science, but also to teach the social context of science," she said.
A small win for rationality?
Behe, who received his doctorate in biochemistry from Penn in 1978, teaches a course that covers intelligent design, entitled "Popular Arguments on Evolution."
Is this a 'science' course. Can the credits for this course be used to help get a 'science' degree?
I see nothing wrong with teaching the social context of ID in the Philosophy/Religion department.
A bit like teaching ESP as an alternative to telecommunications.
This Rabbi seems to understand the difference between science and religion.
Behe, who received his doctorate in biochemistry from Penn in 1978, teaches a course that covers intelligent design, entitled "Popular Arguments on Evolution." Behe says that many of his students enjoy the course, which is only offered every other year.
I took a course on UFO's that was offered through the Philosophy Department.
Now that I think of it, I once took an "Urban Folklore" class. Seems like the perfect place to teach ID to me.
As someone else said: a PhD thesis concluding with "It's a miracle!" ain't gonna fly.
These types of classes are fun and interesting, and have some historical value, but I don't think anyone taking the UFO class confused it for a class in the Physics or Biology Department.
"A bit like teaching ESP as an alternative to telecommunications."
Hmmm...
"Professor Garrett, I registered for your ESP course, and I've never received any class materials, or even notification of where the class meets."
"I know. You're failing."
I suspect as many people believe in ESP as believe in ID.
And for the same reason.
|
Given the average ego size of most Penn profs, grads (and not a few students), I'm surprised they're not running classes that teach that the universe was spawned from Penn, itself.
That would be because biology is in the science department, not the history, philosophy or sociology department.
But there are people trying to apply postmodern deconstructionism to science. Ther are called ID advocates. Their goal is to convince that textual criticism is more important than empirical research.
It seems to me that it would be a very reasonable course offering in the philosophy department, and that (assuming a level of enrollment comparable to other courses) there could be no reasonable objection to its being taught in that context.
I am currently reading an excellent book that deals with the issue of evolution and intelligent design. It's called "Dawkins God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life" I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.
Unfortunately for you, while they cannot back up their political leanings with evidence, their science curriculum is based on cold, hard facts.
How so? Would it be 'intolerance and biased teaching' if a Medical school declined to teach voodoo? If ID were science, then it might find a place in the science curriculum--but it's not science, so finds a marginal place in philosophy or theology.
Surely this is essentially the operation of 'market forces' in ideas. Ideas worth studying, ideas that advance knowledge, will find students, teachers, and funding a-plenty. Poor ideas wither--unless propped-up by what someone in these threads rightly designated as "affirmative action," the kind of 'special pleading' that liberals make for all sorts of dead-end little niche 'studies.'
I am sincerely trying to understand your objection here, but just don't see it.
"What Penn does not offer, however, is a course exclusively covering intelligent design.
"
Why not? It would be an exceedingly popular class. I give you the final exam:
1. Explain the origins of the universe, our solar system, and life on this planet.
Correct answer: Goddidit.
Score: 100%.
What a class! No books. No complicated theories to understand. A sure thing. Every Freshman could sign up for it. Even the jocks could take this class as their science requirement and raise their GPA.
I say, offer ID101 in every college.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.