Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Pro-Darwin Biology Professor Laments Academia's "Intolerance" and Supports Teaching Intelligent Design
Charles Darwin famously said, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." According to a recent article by J. Scott Turner, a pro-Darwin biology professor at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York, modern Neo-Darwinists are failing to heed Darwin's advice. (We blogged about a similar article by Turner in The Chronicle of Higher Education in January, 2007.) Turner is up front with his skepticism of intelligent design (ID), which will hopefully allow his criticisms to strike a chord with other Darwinists.
Turner starts by observing that the real threat to education today is not ID itself, but the attitude of scientists towards ID: "Unlike most of my colleagues, however, I don't see ID as a threat to biology, public education or the ideals of the republic. To the contrary, what worries me more is the way that many of my colleagues have responded to the challenge." He describes the "modern academy" as "a tedious intellectual monoculture where conformity and not contention is the norm." Turner explains that the "[r]eflexive hostility to ID is largely cut from that cloth: some ID critics are not so much worried about a hurtful climate as they are about a climate in which people are free to disagree with them." He then recounts and laments the hostility faced by Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian:
It would be comforting if one could dismiss such incidents as the actions of a misguided few. But the intolerance that gave rise to the Sternberg debacle is all too common: you can see it in its unfiltered glory by taking a look at Web sites like pandasthumb.org or recursed.blogspot.com [Jeffry Shallit's blog] and following a few of the threads on ID. The attitudes on display there, which at the extreme verge on antireligious hysteria, can hardly be squared with the relatively innocuous (even if wrong-headed) ideas that sit at ID's core.
(J. Scott Turner, Signs of Design, The Christian Century, June 12, 2007.)
Turner on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Case
Turner sees the Kitzmiller v. Dover case as the dangerous real-world expression of the intolerance common in the academy: "My blood chills ... when these essentially harmless hypocrisies are joined with the all-American tradition of litigiousness, for it is in the hand of courts and lawyers that real damage to cherished academic ideas is likely to be done." He laments the fact that "courts are where many of my colleagues seem determined to go with the ID issue” and predicts, “I believe we will ultimately come to regret this."
Turner justifies his reasonable foresight by explaining that Kitzmiller only provided a pyrrhic victory for the pro-Darwin lobby:
Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in the classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.
(J. Scott Turner, Signs of Design, The Christian Century, June 12, 2007.)
Turner on Education
Turner explains, quite accurately, that ID remains popular not because of some vast conspiracy or religious fanaticism, but because it deals with an evidentiary fact that resonates with many people, and Darwinian scientists do not respond to ID's arguments effectively:
[I]ntelligent design … is one of multiple emerging critiques of materialism in science and evolution. Unfortunately, many scientists fail to see this, preferring the gross caricature that ID is simply "stealth creationism." But this strategy fails to meet the challenge. Rather than simply lament that so many people take ID seriously, scientists would do better to ask why so many take it seriously. The answer would be hard for us to bear: ID is not popular because the stupid or ignorant like it, but because neo-Darwinism's principled banishment of purpose seems less defensible each passing day.
(J. Scott Turner, Signs of Design, The Christian Century, June 12, 2007.)
Turner asks, “What, then, is the harm in allowing teachers to deal with the subject as each sees fit?” ID can't be taught, he explains, because most scientists believe that "normal standards of tolerance and academic freedom should not apply in the case of ID." He says that the mere suggestion that ID could be taught brings out "all manner of evasions and prevarications that are quite out of character for otherwise balanced, intelligent and reasonable people."
As we noted earlier, hopefully Turner’s criticisms will strike a chord with Darwinists who might otherwise close their ears to the argument for academic freedom for ID-proponents. Given the intolerance towards ID-sympathy that Turner describes, let us also hope that the chord is heard but the strummer is not harmed.
Of a truth, one cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system "is."
And of course, the geometry of space/time is unknown - and unknowable - so "random" cannot apply to the physical realm.
As soon as a correspondent insists that evolution is a random walk, I know that he is either a metaphysical naturalist or he hasn't thought it through or what he really means to say is "unpredictable."
Communist Manifesto published 1848
Origin of the Species published 1859
So Marx got his ideas from Darwin 11 years before Darwin got his ideas from himself?????????????
Pathogens (Virus types) sometimes use a process known as "antigenic drift" which enables them to connect with mutations where antibodies bind and they are then able to reinfect hosts which would be immune but are not because the specific antibodies are in fact specific.
That is not evolution. That is microbes (sub microbes, whatever) changing outfits every now and then in order to get into a club that they have been permanently kicked out of. I wish that I were not so tired, it were not so late here, and that I really was interested in beating all the time out here on this dead horse.
And, you have been reading too many X-Men comic books if you are of the mind that "mutations" are a positive thing among biological creatures. Mutations are defective offspring.
I am not at all convinced that such a thing can happen. I find it difficult to believe that one thing can turn into another on this planet, short of alchemy (in which I do not believe).
I wouldn't count on that. I hope he's already tenured.
We should just all admit the truth. The Earth sucks.
You claim 5. When you debunk the many thousands of ways evolution has been confirmed, get back to me.
Actually, Marx was an evolutionist long before he ever read Darwin. But, as you will see below, Marx did indeed embrace Darwinism. Consider the following:
“Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.”
Karl Marx on Darwin’s Origin of Species
December, 1860
Indeed, Marx was so enamored with Darwin’s theory of Origins that he sent him a copy of Das Kapital (first published 1867). Here is Darwin’s thank you letter:
“Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin”
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
October, 1873
Friedrich Engles (confound of modern Communism) on Marx:
“Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history...”
From Engles’ Eulogy of Marx (1883)
CASE CLOSED—GGG
Evolution is no more "random" and "purposeless" than a hurricane.
Hurricanes can not form in cold oceans, so they are not strictly "random" in location. They can not form with fast high altitude winds, so again, they are not random.
Life and evolution must exist by following certian rules, like the hurricane, so I can't accept that they are "random". DNA mutations may be more or less "random", but survival is not. Like the hurricane, life must follow certian rules, or it dies. Those rules of survival provide the direction.
Your point about "purposeless" life seems to be akin to the old philosophical point about whether a tree falling in the woods makes a noise. It's an interesting question to think about, but the question itself is "purposeless". Trees fall in the woods, and whether the noise is observed or recorded is irrelevant.
Similarly live evolves, whether we observe it or not. It's only "purpose" is to survive, which is the cornerstone of evolution theory. Life that does not have the ability to survive, dies, and it's evolutionary chain is broken, so the only "purpose" one can ascribe to evolution and life, is survival, because literally every single one of it's ancestors had the ability to survive, and inheritance of traits such as the ability to survive is a fact.
That concept is cold. It is very enticing to believe that there simply *must* be a purpose to life. But despite the drive in all of us to find such purpose defined outside of ourselves, I don't see it. We all must find our own purpose, and some of us do that by following the teachings handed down from long ago, such as those in the Bible. Some of us find our purposes by our own inventiveness.
So microbes change, but the change is not a mutation, because all mutations are defective. Got it.
==What experiment can a scientist design that could show life to be random and purposeless, when everything we human beings know about our world on the basis of direct observation and knowledge of human and natural history screams the very opposite?
One might further ask the obvious question as to how completely random and purposeless causes produce scientists that design purposeful experiments! LOL
About this sentence: The universe can "change", but in this conversation it is utterly impossible for it to "evolve" in the manner described by Darwin.
Evolution by definition must involve imperfect replication, combined with some kind of survival filter that encourages the death of defective replications, and/or encourages the additional survival of superior replications.
The "universe" cannot replicate, so it cannot "evolve" in the manner we're discussing.
==Don’t forget about the Newtonians.
I hate to break it to you, BillyBoy...Newton is one of ours. LOL
PS Classic victim mentality. I sometimes wonder what people with your mentality will say when they arrive in Hell. Will they try to reassure themselves, "I'm not here, I'm not here, I'm not here..." Or will they play the blame game, "It's not my fault, the Christians made me do it." Perhaps it will be an eternal combination of both.
Scientific American claimed in 2001 on their front cover that the First Transitional Fossil, (obviously there were none before this (it was a dinosaur with a bird tail). But lo and behold a few months later this was a proven fraud as well. Interesting that there have been no transitionals found.
PS I couldn’t agree more:
Tom Bethell, in his “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,” quotes author Michael Crichton as saying that consensus science “is an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
This is a very narrow definition of evolution: that which replicates is capable of evolution, and that which does not replicate is incapable of evolution. The universe -- as you note -- does not seem to replicate, at least in the normal meaning of that word. Still, the universe obviously evolves: the big bang/inflationary universe model has been pretty solidly validated experimentally by now.
I understand it was an early dream of the late Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr that the Darwinian theoretical model would one day be used to integrate and unify all the disciplines of natural science. To put it mildly, that did not happen. Late in life, he had evidently given up on that idea. At last Mayr proposed that biology ought to be regarded as a "sovereign science" in its own right, just as physics is a "sovereign" science -- and ne'er the twain shall meet! To me this is nuts, for biology ever has a physical basis, although life is not exhausted by its physical description: There is nore to it than that.
I just think Mayr's conjecture regarding the universality of the Darwinian model is a prime example of trying to push too much into abstract categories -- such as the abstraction that only replicating things can evolve.
Bump
The Greeks seek after wisdom; The Jews seek a sign; but there shall be no sign given but the sign of Jonah.
You obviously chose the Greek path, and you know where that wound up.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
If I am wrong it matters little, for I am here but a short while, and the Universe will continue on the path as it will, my existence will make no difference what ever in your life.
If I am correct, it matters greatly to you.
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.