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.
You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
George Bernard Shaw, famous irrational heathen and fabianist socialist
"Back to Methuselah" (1921), part 1, act 1
I'll stick with reality, George.
Me too, unspun. The "second realities" I see being spun today look totally inhospitable to, and uninhabitable by, real human beings. JMHO FWIW Plus things that "never were" probably don't have a high probability of ever "becoming something." But then that is a dispute for the combinatoric statistics guys and the Bayseans.... :^)
Thank you so much for writing!
A "designer" for a glass sphere 8 feet in diameter is rational, because there are no known natural processes that can account for it. While a "designer" for the various species is not rational, because there is a natural process that can account for it. That natural process coincides with the evidence, it has been duplicated, there are explained mechanisims that can be "unit tested", and finally, there is no evidence for a "designer" presented. Therefore the natural process is the best and "rational" explanation for the various species. (although if evidence for a designer was presented, it would by definition be a part of the "natural" world, because the "super natural" world is by definition unknown and unknowable)
I deliberately did not use the word "cause" as you did, because purely natural "causes" do exist. If a stone drops, the "cause" is gravity, etc.
I did not use the wording "'designer' for life", because it is not known how life came to exist. Claiming that a "designer" created the first life is not irrational, because the answer to that question is not known. However, I doubt it.
I simply am asking you to rationally account for the origin of the universe.
Personally, I doubt the red shift is meaningful, and I don't believe there was a Big Bang, because a steady state universe makes more sense to me than a god like creation via "Big Bang". There are some physicists that are beginning to think the same thing, but they are a minority. But I'm not fully educated on the issue, so what do I know?
Your description of evolution seems confused. That confusion is confirmed by your apparent association of evolution with the beginning of life by your phrase "causation by pure chance, accident, or random agglomeration of 'smart matter' that suddenly becomes 'potent'".
Evolution of species is an entirely different thing from the beginning of life, and certainly a different thing from the beginning of the universe. Biological evolution *requires* reproduction with occasional "errors", in combination with survival pressures. Unless life already exists, and those things occur, then you're not talking about biological evolution but something else.
Your sentence: "this assumes that it is true that phenomena must have "rational" causes. (As opposed to causation by pure chance". "Random chance" is a rational phenomena. The most purely "random" thing that can be observed is the rate of detection of background cosmic radiation, a purely rational source. The results of a throw of dice is "random", yet rational. A "random accident" where lightning strikes your house and burns it down is also rational.
Philosophy is an interesting hobby, but it can easily lead the practitioner to confusion about reality. In discussing ID and evolution, it is better to stick with the apparent reality and avoid speculating about far fetched philosophy. The philosophy is not only confusing to ones self, but is further confused by attempting to communicate the concepts. No doubt my writing here will be interpreted by the reader differently from my original meaning. Questions, objections, and errors seen in this post are more often errors in the communication process, not in the original meaning. So keeping things simple, allows better communication, and has a closer association with reality.
So, now so I can understand your answer to my question, you believe there is no deisigner of the universe because..........
just fill in the blank there.
Regarding your fleeing from the word cause.....gravity.....well, you know what you said. To that I ask, "Since you and I agree that "Gravity" is the attraction of 2 masses for one another", what is the cause of gravity....more specifically what is the first cause. I ask that you go to first cause to expedite this collique.
And finally your last paragraph brings me to my first question. Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what was it? If not, what do you assert is the reason all of matter, molecular and sub atomic particles, waves, etc, remain oriented in the universe as we see them; earth revolves around the sun, the hundreds of thousands of galaxies, etc. Why are these entities of the cosmos not completely expanded to a virtual and real vacuum. They certainly must have had enough time to expand toward nothingness. Another way to as the question is, what was before the Big Bang? If the Expansion-occillation theory, which has largely been discarded by proponents of origins, is your view please explain. The 'steady state universe' needs explaining as I have not for 40 years of study found that to be any term used to explain origin. It may well explain an open system where energy or mass is continually being renewed, but the term steady state is not an explaination for origin.
If you adhere to the term 'steady state universe' please tell me what was its first cause. Remember in science we have to adopt the philosophical application of rational thinking. That is the scientific way, and I am sure that you would agree that rational thinking should compel science. Therefore before your 'steady state universe' please explain what just preceeded the induction of this steady state.
Jeepers, narby, I think I understand the problem of communication that you and I seem to be having.
You seem to want to "slice and dice" the universe into manageable bites (in a manner perfectly accordant with the increasing specialization of science, as fine-tuned to suit the Darwinian exegesis when needed); and I want to find the root and reason of the whole, that is to say the entire physical universe, together with whatever "beyond" it may have; for that may very well be where its cause subsists.
You can look at individual trees all day long, and never get a glimpse or an inkling of the forest....
Might as well 'fess up: Science is due for a rational critique from the "philosophy side" of the Great Cartesian Divide....
On the contrary, science corroborates a lot of what the Bible teaches about science. And don't forget which came first by several thousand years.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning.....
There was a beginning supported by the Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s equations and Hubble’s observations.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void,...
Supported by the solar nebula theory and the proto earth.
Gen 1:20 ”Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,
Scientists say that life arose in the seas.
Gen 1:24 ”Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind... Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
“Shaped from clay [origin of life]”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515522/posts
Scientists have concluded that clay was necessary for the formation of life.
Eccles 1:6 Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns.
Scripture describes the circulating system of winds.
Eccles 1:7 All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again.
The Bible also describes the water cycle.
Lev 17:10 - 12 `And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. `For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ “Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’
Blood is necessary for life. The life is in the blood.
Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Job 9 5, 8 ”It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger; 8. Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea;
Expansion of the universe.
Col 1: 15- 17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
All things are being held together; gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism.
But not unexpected.
I would expect more outcry from scientists about non-scientists trying to define what is and is not science. They may not complain now, because the ruling happens to be one they agree with, but if they let it go, it'll backfire on them and it'll be too late for them to do anything about it.
They're allowing a dangerous precedent to be set and don't even seem to realize it.
This is the second time in a week you have been targeted with these bizarre word usage claims. Jeepers!
For many years around here it was understood among the usual correspondents that when we said "evolution" we meant "gradual change over time" and when we were speaking of Darwin's theory we'd say "theory of evolution." Likewise when a correspondent meant Young Earth Creationism, he'd use that term or YEC for short.
Of course the universe evolves. Hasn't anyone heard of stellar evolution? Or about the universe expanding? inflationary theory? big bang? critical density?
You can look at individual trees all day long, and never get a glimpse or an inkling of the forest....
Interesting, thank you. By that definition of evolution, anyone who believes Genesis 1, regardless of his speculation of it's interpretation, believes in evolution -- at least technically. It clearly describes change by grade over time, however God's day went.
"Hi, God! How was your day, today? Did it go fast, or did it drag on? Shucks, I wasn't there, so I guess between the two of us, how it went is just how you decided it went, for you, eh?""
But, if I do take that definition of evolution, I wouldn't be comfortable dignifying Darwinism with such a universal term as "theory of evolution." I'd want to modify that even further. "Theory of spontaneous... mindless... soulless... heartless... evolution..." something like that.
"Origin of species" is a better fit for his theory though I agree with you, that his theory is empty in many ways.
It doesn't look at first cause (abiogenesis/biogensis) or final cause (purpose, progress, direction). As betty boop described it earlier, he was looking at trees - not the forest.
Jeepers, he never even asked or answered the question "what is life?" - he just took it as a "given."
intentionless...? aimless...? pointless...?
What is the opposite of “creativity?”
What, indeed.
And there are those silly blinders like racehorses wear. Or, Miss Haversham's windowshades, again.
The Pharisees of 30-33 A.D., or so, may be looking on enviously, when they see the priests of "modern thought" doing with so many, what they found it so hard to do when God pressed the flesh.
SUNY ESF is as liberal and green as they come. I'm surprised that an opinion as *conservative* as this would come from there.
In one sense, the antonym for creation would be ruin, et al. In a physical sense, it might be entropy.
It can be seen in individual cells, functional groups (e.g. cardiovascular), organisms, collectives of organisms (e.g. army ants) - all the way to biosphere and perhaps, beyond to the universe as a whole.
The cells cooperate to the benefit of the function which cooperates to the benefit of the organism which cooperates to the benefit of the collective of organisms on up the scale.
The question goes to autonomy, semiosis, hierarchy, awareness, choice.
Or another way to put it, when we throw a live bird, a dead bird and a rock off a roof - why would the live bird fly away?
I know where you're going. You want to lead me to a conclusion that has me saying that God is the "first cause".
Ok. Let's say God was the "first cause". Now you tell me what was the "first cause" that created God.
Then you probably won't find your answer in science. Which is not to say that any particular "sliced and diced" element of science is false, just that it isn't any kind of Grand Unified Answer to Existence that you seem to be looking for.
Might as well 'fess up: Science is due for a rational critique from the "philosophy side" of the Great Cartesian Divide....
Science operates just fine without heavy doses of philosophy. It's philosophy that seems to be having a rough time swallowing the science.
My question is , "Did the universe have a beginning?" If your answer yes, say, "Yes". If you answer is no, say "No." Then explain with the law of rationality of thought as science requires why you arrive at your answer. If there is another option please explain. I do not seek to put words in your mouth.
What's wrong with "spontaneous... mindless... soulless... heartless"?
A beautiful rainstorm is all those things, yet I doubt you would have the same irrational prejudice against it that you have against evolution theory.
Evolution is just another natural process, not unlike evaporation or gravity or conduction, only perhaps a bit more complicated, and surely harder for some people to grasp. Evolution is perhaps "soulless", but so is a flower. So what?
Evolution, for those who understand it, is as beautiful as any living thing, because it was the mechanism whereby that life differentiated itself from prior life.
If you believe in the soul and believe in God, then appreciate evolution for what it is, one of God's first creations.
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.