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.
Excellent epithet
It's your own tagline.
Arguments that rely on hyperobole can be persuasive, but in my experience the more they rely on it the less likely their assertions are to prove accurate.
A bad argument in favor of an idea doesn't necessarily invalidate the idea, so in the interest of giving the idea a fair hearing I'm inclined to disregard your comments.
I was about to agree with you and apologize for phrasing things in a way which allowed you to infer I did consider them the same ... but on rethinking it - are they not both merely signposts, one reading "That Way To Cold" and the other "That Way To Chaos" ?? Other than the distinction of "cold" / "chaos" ... are they really so dissimilar?
hmmm - oth - we would associate the 'hot' "first" fractions of a second of the cosmos (at the 'time' of the big bang) with chaos. Does that somehow imply that 'communication' and 'physics' are ... (what's the appropriate word: inverses? opposites? counterparts?) of each other?
A hyperbolic situation or event explained by less than hyperbole is merely disinformation or a lie.. or both.. A less than hyperbolic situation explained by hyperbole is salesmanship or marketing..
... and re your inclusion of 'conscience' in list of origins ...
a curious thought just struck me. I mentioned gender differentation as perhaps the genesis of 'communication' and now think it may too be the genesis of 'conscience' via the resultant need for mutual survival.
'Genderization' of a conscious life form necessitates 'concern for others,' not just self.
However, I am struggling to come up with a non-genderized conscious life form (sentient perhaps, but not conscious). Was there ever one? Hive insects are genderized and may have something of a group consciousness. Some flora are genderized, but not conscious as far as we can determine. Perhaps both must occur independantly and combine to give rise to 'conscience'.
... Adam and Eve ... followed by eating the 'apple' ... followed by expulsion of both .. presumably engendering a realization that they were 'in it together' - or rather 'out of it together.' ... Perhaps 'genderization' is also a pre-requisite for anything beyond the most basic form of 'consciousness'.
When does awareness become consciousness become sentience become intelligence?
Even single cells display some awareness/decision making: Cell Intelligence
Reproduction does suggest some concern for the offspring and the mate (except perhaps for black widow spiders.) But I'm wondering if the cooperation goes deeper.
Why does a cell cooperate in the survival of the function or organism? For instance, if you suffer a heart attack, the blood will route around the dead tissue - all the cells in cardiovascular system benefit as does the organism.
OTOH, bacteria, bacterial spores and viruses, virons, prions, mimiviruses and such do not always seem to be cooperative with the hosts, even when they must have the host to survive.
BTW, in Shannon's model (information theory) applied to molecular biology - most of the above are "noise" in the channel. Noise can also be seen as a "broadcast" message - like a radio transmission bleeding over into a television broadcast.
In Scripture, the "cut" is much easier to discern. The "animal" soul of any living thing is nephesh or roughly the will to live, the carnal nature. The ruach is the pivot, the deciding soul which chooses whether to be carnally minded or spiritually minded. The nephesh is the breath of God peculiar to Adamic man, the "ears to hear" or sense of belonging beyond space and time. And ruach Elohim is the Holy Spirit of God who indwells Christians.
No you don't.. No Sale.. The Observer problem is a tough pitch and close..
You might find this hard to believe, Hosepipe, but everyone isn't just like you. When you put a piece of propaganda in front of me, my first reaction is to deconstruct it. I am impressed when I find everything there succinct, accurate, and to the point.
There is no sales pitch that works on everyone.
When it becomes gratitude.. Awareness IS gratitude..
Consciousness, Sentience and Intelligence are "some" symptoms of Awareness..
No gratitude no awareness, much gratitude much awareness..
Ingratitude is a/the lack of awareness..
Are you AWARE?... then you are grateful..
Are you DULL?.... then count your blessings..
1) True you're too easy..
2) True again most people want to hear what they want to hear..
....Tell them what they want to hear, they are hooked..
3) Many/most observers think their observations are succinct, accurate and to the point when its just one Point of View.. Which is the POINT of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil(Gen.ch 1-3) and the "prohibition to touch it"..
The study of propaganda is a study of salesmanship..
Semantics is the art of observers observing the observations of observers..
You know, the observer problem..
This is where I find out if it’s about the ideas, or if it’s about Hosepipe’s ego.
LoL...
We’re done.
I haven't got a clue what "real" time is. Einstein doesn't say what it is; he appears to be interested in it as a measurement only ("time is what we measure with clocks"). The arrow of time evidently is a by-product of the second law of thermodynamics, which itself is a pretty "strange" law -- in that it, unlike all the other laws of physics, is not time-reversible.
You wrote: "As to the rate of time we perceive, we probably can't even assume we individually perceive it at a 'common' rate...." I think that's an excellent assumption. Perception of time appears to be fairly subjective. Time can "speed up" or "slow down" in our perception of it. William James suggests this has something to do with the intensity and novelty of the thought process: When the thinking is more or less "routine," time seems to go fast; but if we are belaboring a complex problem, time seems to slow. Then again, if we are bored, it seems to simply drag along; if we are participating in something that interests us, it seems to speed up.
James also notes that the child's sense of the "rate" of time passing is different than that of older persons. Which seems to be confirmed by my own experiences of childhood as compared to my time sense now, as a mature adult. When I was a child, it seemed that summers would last "forever"; today, they simply fly by. James accounts for this sort of thing by saying that adults have solved a whole lot of the problems of life (at least in their own minds), and much has become habitual -- that is, not requiring the expenditure of a great deal of mental effort. For a child, all the world remains to be discovered, all problems are "new"; more mental effort is required, and thus the sense of time passing would be slower for the child as compared with the mature adult.
If by "real" time we mean "objective" time, since essentially our perception of time is subjective, I don't know by what means the human mind can access "objective" time so to make a valid description of it.
In short, I agree with your observation: "the 'arrow' of time is not a provable 'reality' independant of our perception." At least that appears to be the case, so far!
Just a few stray thoughts.... Thank you so much for sharing your musings, dougd!
Actually, I think it's the reverse. The great leap in 'salesmanship' of Madison Ave. was founded by the propogandists of WWII.
Good morning, Texas Songwriter!
I find all this rather surprising. I'm not aware of any public statements by Chardin that expressly declare this understanding. But then, I'm not a Chardin expert.
What I do know is that Chardin was a Jesuit priest and world-class paleontologist who, while working in China, participated in the discovery of Peking man. He was an evolutionist, but not a Darwinian. I gather the evolution that interested him was the cosmic evolution, culminating in a sort of "apotheosis" of consciousness (cosmic consciousness, not divine consciousness) at something he called the Omega Point. I never interpreted the Omega Point as referring to God's consciousness, which is not subject to evolution, being already perfect and eternal.
If indeed Chardin is a pantheist, I find it curious that Wolfhart Pannenberg -- an ordained Lutheran minister and Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Munich -- could devote an entire chapter to Chardin's thought in his excellent book, Toward a Theology of Nature, without once mentioning it.
One of Pannenberg's many interesting observations in this work is that the famous mathematician/philosopher Leibniz "accused" Isaac Newton of being a "pantheist," because of the latter's speculation about the existence of a sensorium Dei -- seemingly a sort of field-like "structure" by which the "Lord of Life [is] with His creatures" in a physical, not spiritual sense. The distinction between Lord and creation is completely maintained in this concept; and so I think Leibniz's charge of "pantheist!" does not hold water....
So perhaps what we have here is yet another example of the famous "observer problem": You evidently see something that I cannot confirm by my own observations. That's not to say I think you're "wrong"; it's only simply to say that I do not see it. I'd welcome further information.
Thank you so much for writing, Texas Songwriter!
Now we are all Nominalists. Except for occasional conjunctions at uncontrolled intersections every poster on this thread is talking about different things. Aside from the 'Right on!' now and then there is no sign of communication and the ones giving the 'Right on!' appear to be less interested in the context than the blows. I would mention Schleiermacher again, but it's no use in such a melee.
Actually, I believe 'sentience' is synonymous with 'awareness' - an "undifferentiated consciousness." So the order goes ssomething like: sensation -> sentience -> consciousness -> intelligence.
But I am a bit at a loss as to where this discussion is trying to go. Is it the 'when' (viz 'how') - ergo scientific postulation - or "Why does a cell cooperate in the survival of the function or organism?" (although contextually that sounds more like a 'how' question) - ergo metaphysical speculation?
In general, it seems to me as though you are seeking to enumerate "original miracles" as a challenge to 'science.' To that extent you and I have agreement, if I'm not presuming too much on your part, with (1)E=Mc2 (although you would sub-divide that into at least two pieces of space/time and inertia); (2) The possibility of 'life'; (3) Consciousness (which I would claim is actually (consciousness/will); (4) Conscience (although I think there may be a 'more original' miracle from which 'conscience' derives. I have at the moment left off 'information' because I still don't have a clear grasp of the connotation you intend which is in some sense 'miraculous.'
Let me try to describe what I think might be the 'miraculous' nature of information and see if you agree.
Beyond the miracles of the physical cosmos, life, consciousness and conscience, it is also miraculous that there exists a discoverable 'language' that describes and permits communication of and about (at least some) of those miracles.
For example, mathematics is the 'language' of the physical universe; perhaps DNA is the 'language' of life; and presumably we might someday extend our 'information' discoveries to include some yet undiscovered 'language' of consciousness, conscience, etc.
In that sense, what I mean by 'information' is a kind of 'meta-language' which subsumes mathematics, DNA and likely more 'language subsets.' However, from your posts, I think you are more focused on the micro-aspects of 'information' - what I call 'infons' - elementary particles of 'messages'. It is somewhat analogous to research in 'artificial' intelligence; some researchers seek answers from philosophy, some in the 'macro' aspects of intelligence with CAT scans of the brain, some seek 'contrasting' clues in the 'breakdowns' stemming from physical injuries to the brain, some in the operation of neurons and their axons. Some believe that intelligence necessarily derives from some critical level of complexity. And yet others think it might be achieved piecemeal - i.e. achive 'chess playing', add 'language processor', add this and that and eventually you get to 'intelligence'. I find it a bit curious that there is little effort to 'simply' start with trying to achieve 'artificial sentience' - anything which could be seen as a primitive form of awareness of 'self' or even that sensory inputs have any kind of 'meaning.' Ah well.
Despite our 'coming at' "information" from different directions, have I captured the question about information ?
"Right On!" ;->
In fact that is what I was just trying to overcome in my almost simultaneous post above
I think the issue is failure to clarify the question. Back in the day when I ran some 'brainstorming sessions' my only rule was that attendees could bring only a dictionary and a thesaurus with them. Once we were able to define the question in a manner all understood in the same way, the answers were usually pretty much self evident.
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.