Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:16 AM PDT by Valin
In the most recent issue of the American Scientist, Pat Shipman issued a warning to his fellow Darwinists, informing them of the impending threat placed upon their theory by intelligent design (ID):
“These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep…. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.”
Shipman has officially sounded the alarm. This comes after twenty years of warnings from the ivory towers, issuing the message, “Protect Darwin, or else.”
In 1983, Dr. John Patterson, self-avowed atheist and evolutionist, was serving as one of the members of the Iowa State University committee on instruction in the sciences and humanities. He presented a proposal to the committee suggesting that any student who was enrolled in a science-related course, and who, at the conclusion of the course, continued to maintain a personal belief in creation, should receive a failing grade. Furthermore, Patterson said that if the university discovered that it inadvertently had conferred a degree upon a student who, upon having graduated, nevertheless believed in creation, the degree should be rescinded.
Twenty years later, Micah Spradling, a pre-med student at Texas Tech University, applied for entrance to Southwestern University’s medical school. In order to complete his application, he needed a letter of recommendation from a specific faculty member, Michael Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech. Dini required that in order to receive a letter of recommendation with his signature, a student was required to meet a three part criteria. The first two criteria were standard academic requirements. The third criteria, however, is one Spradling was not prepared to fulfill. Dini asked that Spradling “truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer” to the question: “How do you think the human species originated?” Spradling was denied a recommendation based entirely on the fact that he did not accepted Darwinism as a fact.
Just the next year, Nancy Bryson, a biology professor at Mississippi University for Women, was asked to give an extra-curricular presentation on a topic of her choosing. Bryson, who earned her Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from the University of South Carolina, held a talk entitled “Critical Thinking on Evolution.” The talk presented evidence—marshaled by scientists, philosophers of science, mathematicians, law professors, and geologists—of serious problems with Darwinian evolution. Immediately following the talk, a professor of biology stood in front of the group, reading a prepared statement attacking Bryson’s presentation. “This is just religion masquerading as science" he urged in his five minute soliloquy. After the diatribe, students warmly approached Bryson, thanking her for her talk, sharing their disgust with the attack pointed at her by the professor. The following morning, several professors from the Department of Sciences and Mathematics filed complaints to the Vice President of Academic Affairs regarding her presentation. The next day, the VPAA informed Bryson that in the next academic year, she would lose her position as the Division Head of her department. She was also told she was in grave danger of losing her tenure-track appointment.
This June, Bryan Leonard, who received his Master's Degree in microbiology, presented his doctoral dissertation to the committee responsible for granting his Ph.D. at Ohio State University. Leonard’s doctoral dissertation deals with the area of evolution education, specifically looking at how students react and shape their beliefs when presented with the scientific information both supporting and challenging macroevolution. In his dissertation, Leonard presents clear data that shows the majority of students are interested in learning both sides from a scientific perspective. Leonard's dissertation was suddenly postponed after three professors at OSU struck down his dissertation research because of his views on evolution, his use of human subjects for testing, and his public association of his beliefs with OSU. The three professors, in their letter to the committee, said, "We note a fundamental flaw: There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise…” Of the 350 students polled by Leonard, 312 said that they would be more interested in learning the scientific information supporting and challenging macroevolution.
Earlier this month, President Timothy White of the University of Idaho issued a letter informing faculty that it was “inappropriate” for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula." The statement prohibits any views that differ from evolution, “no matter how scientific,” and no matter how related to the courses under study. White’s letter was released just as University of Idaho biologist and ID supporter, Scott Minnich, was set to testify about ID in a Pennsylvania lawsuit. Ironically, the university's own faculty handbook declares that "academic freedom is essential for the protection of the rights of faculty members in teaching and of students in learning" and that "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects" so long as they don't introduce irrelevant material.
There are two ways to win in the marketplace of ideas: you can either make the best products—formulating robust arguments and communicating your ideas clearly—or sabotage your competitor’s—stopping their research and censuring their work.
Joe Manzari is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.
> A being outside the natural laws of the physical universe can create life ex nihlo. We've just verified the existence of God and ID. Fair enough?
Ahhh... no. To verify the existence of God, you would have to by showing that God is possible. Giving what some of this hypothetical God's properties would be is *not* relevant. And the level of evidence required for showing God-possibility is substantially higher than that for showing that small mutations are possible.
> Why would the undirected evolution of the TTSS into the eubacterial flagellum be a kick in the shin to the ToE?
It wouldn't.
You believe the existence of God is not possible?
> Why would the undirected evolution of the TTSS into the eubacterial flagellum be a kick in the shin to the ToE? . . .It wouldn't.
It would. What does the TTSS do?
> You believe the existence of God is not possible?
I believe it is undemonstrated. And given the vast array of conflicting properties this "God" person is supposed to ahve, being anythign from Hairy Thunderer to Cosmic Muffin (2 points to whoever gets *that*), it sounds more liek something people jsut made up.
And since we can demonstrate fairly conclusively that people a re perfectly capable of makign stuff up... and making up stuff that other people will *believe* - then there is already a simpler explanation. Does this mean "God" doesn;t exist? Nope. Just that the hypothesis is not backed up by hard evidence. And given the scope of the hypothesis, the evidence woudl ahve to be pretty substantial. Imagine if I told you that I was capable of travelling backwards through time, raising the dead, and creating individuals and whole civilizatiosn out of thin air. You would, I hope, demand some pretty stout evidence.
If, however, you don't need that level of proof, I can give you my payPal account name, and you can pray to me proper in $100 increments.
> It would. What does the TTSS do?
If you get near a point, please, by all means make it.
Like the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum.
Those ignorant of science are just as likely to fall for Velikovsky as for Ron Hubbard.
Prediction: No creationist will back away from Manzari's claims even after it's busted as thoroughly as Rather's was.
>> I believe it is undemonstrated.
> Like the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum.
Sigh. Again, you equate God with a minor mutation. Well, that's your theology. Have fun with it.
Or Behe. Or Gore.
Still awaiting the return of the World Ice Theory...
Again, you're misunderstanding. We're not discussing the Divinity of God but the meanings of words and the nature of belief.
Now, God has demonstrated his existence in recorded history. Would you agree with that?
> God has demonstrated his existence in recorded history. Would you agree with that?
Not without evidence better than second-hand testimony or someone's say-so. Otherwise, I'll accept the "demonstrations" of Odins existence rather more readily.
This has drifted well off from the topic at hand, and has been sripped of all interesting or useful content. So, unless you have a point to make, I've other things to do.
Are you sure?
Yes, i've noticed that. It's more important that they make stuff up and keep on going regardless. These poeple aren't trustworthy.
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.