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.
The questions are irrelevant to the subject at hand of the ID hypothesis vs. evolution theory.
1. Attempting to have discussions about weeding out what is forensically and scientifically determinable regarding origins is ground trodden virtually into concrete, in FR.
2. As Julie Andrews sang, "We begin at the very beginning. That's a very good place to start." Once we find some basis at the basis, then we can begin to converse, without silly arguments that attempt to rule out fundamental understanding such things as how we can understand what we understand (another analogy, "ruling out," kind of like the kid who holds his hands over his ears and goes "LA-LA-LA...!" in order not to hear.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis simply says “that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an unguided process such as natural selection.”
It does not posit articles of faith, morals, doctrines or Holy writ – it is not religion.
It does not substitute for the theory of evolution because it addresses only “certain features” – not all features.
Like the theory of evolution, it is not an origin of life hypothesis, i.e. abiogenesis v biogenesis.
Most significantly, it does not specify the “intelligent cause,” which could be a phenomenon such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Neither does it specify a particular agent, such as God, or collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc. The Intelligent Design hypothesis does not specify either phenomenon or agent — much less any specific phenomenon or specific agent.
The hypothesis is on rather solid ground in that many of us have observed that creatures do in fact often choose their mates (intelligent cause) – and those choices directly affect the traits inherited by the offspring as compared to, say, blindly (undirected) breeding.
In sum, I do not see the Intelligent Design hypothesis as a competitor to the theory of evolution – nor do I see any reason to be concerned about it.
Most significantly, it does not specify the “intelligent cause,” which could be a phenomenon such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Neither does it specify a particular agent, such as God, or collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc. The Intelligent Design hypothesis does not specify either phenomenon or agent — much less any specific phenomenon or specific agent.
You are correct that a conjecture that has no content is no threat. But then concepts have never been a threat to anyone. The threat comes from people wielding political power and attempting to replace science with bullshit.
In every case where the courts have been called upon to intervene with attempts to derail the teaching of science, the people behind anti-science have revealed themselves to be young earth creationists hoping to promote Biblical literalism. This is so transparent when people are questioned under oath that the outcome of the cases is never in doubt.
That is a different kind of discussion which I will leave to the rest of you - because, in my view, for every instance of a theist embracing ID as support --- there will be a corresponding atheist embracing evolution as support.
That could be done on any thread on FR, about any subject. Bring up Iraq, ask how the poster thinks the universe began. Bring up illegal immigration, ask how the universe began.
Putting off discussing ID and evolution until you "find some basis at the basis", will result in never discussing it. Which, no doubt, is the point.
I see no reason to play this game any more.
Good day.
And GGG, you can take me off your ping list.
Ok. But the title of this thread is "Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design". It is telling that the technique of discussing evolution has evolved to the point where the subject is avoided at all costs.
BOTH ID and evolution can prove that man has evolved to "believe in god".. Animals and lesser lifeforms do not worship a god.. Even if they have to invent a designer God.. Most humans believe in some kind of god..
Atheists must be Under Evolved.. or intellectually dysfunctional..
You are now free to bury your head in the sand without any further comments from me (unless of course you bother me in the future).
I understand, you want to sing your Darwinist songs unmolested.
Where were you before I bothered you? Oh, that’s right...Ok, take it from the top...
“Life unwinds like a cheap sweater,
Since I gave up hope I feel a lot better”
etc. etc. etc.
Guess I'd call that minimalist intelligent design ;-` which should be intriguing for folks with a modernist orientation, come to think.
Wouldn't label it so ultimately, but I guess such things may happen in cycles and this may be a trough. If you'd been around here about four or five years ago, you'd see long threads with detailed, data-filled bickering. ;-`
What happened, A-G? Did "Patrick Henry" and so many others find other things to do?
ID has no content with which to support any position. Look at your own description: a concept that asserts an unknown and unnamed force or entity, having no known or named attributes, no limitations or capabilities, no processes or motives, may or may not have done something at some unspecified time, leaving no evidence.
Now explain to me why young earth creationists and Biblical literalists wish to promote in school, the teachings of a movement that promotes a content-free curriculum, one that doesn't even deny the most odious parts of evolution -- the ancient age of the earth and common descent.
How many ID proponents are as honest about this as Behe?
If you are speaking of publicly funded schools, IMHO, this was a long time coming. After all, the schools are funded by taxpayers – and the understanding of “don’t speak about God at all” has grown in perceived compliance to judicial rulings since Engel v. Vitale over four decades of a liberal dominated Supreme Court which interpreted the establishment cause beyond its clear meaning.
The result was that publicly funded institutions do not merely remain agnostic on religion but rather promote atheism, which, btw, an appeals court has now determined is also a religion, Kaufman v McCaughtry - raising the possibility of new legal theories vis-à-vis publicly funded schools .
At any rate, the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. The result has been an increased emphasis on parochial schools, private schools and homeschooling – so much so that many within the Southern Baptist Convention strongly recommend parents get their kids out of the publicly funded school system as quickly as possible.
This crisis did not come to a head due to the theory of evolution – and abiogenesis being promoted under color of the theory when it is factually not a part of the theory – but rather the NEA-sponsored embrace and indoctrination of homosexuality and promiscuity.
More specifically, there has been an exponential growth of anti-publicly funded school sentiment since part of that agenda appears to be telling elementary level students, “now don’t tell your parents…” when presenting pro-homosexual materials (as if to encourage kids to “come out of the closet.”)
The pendulum swing is also evident in the make-up of this Supreme Court which is more likely to interpret the establishment clause as freedom “of” religion and not “from” religion. Nevertheless, stare decisis applies and changes will come slowly if at all.
I wouldn’t mourn the abolishment of all publicly funded schools in favor of vouchers so even low income parents can make those choices.
But to whatever extent K-12 publicly funded schools exist, laying aside the social and moral issues, I would rather the dilemma concerning ID, creationism, et al be addressed as an elective colloquium for the students.
In other words, the kids could choose to participate in a colloquium where they pick the subjects, do the research, make their presentations and try to persuade other kids to their point of view. It would not be a “debate” class – and the teacher would only grade them on their efforts and effectiveness. The subjects could include otherwise forbidden materials such as Jesus Christ, Islam, YEC, ID, atheism – academic subjects of any kind - or even childish silliness, school mascots etc.
But I also see where ID can be taught in publicly funded schools - under the current laws - by teaching the hypothesis itself and not dictating the "intelligent cause" as any specific phenomenon or agent.
Most of the former Freepers gathered on DarwinCentral.com where they do discuss science articles but of course they are “preaching to the choir” so there appears to be little interest in those threads.
Worse, poor behavior is tolerated over there – foul language and cross-forum personal attacks. They have become an anti-Freeper website attracting some refugees from clownposse as well.
It’s a very sad situation to betty boop and me – we miss our correspondents and the brisk dialogue on the issues. They were a challenging bunch.
But things are looking up for us – some of the newer correspondents are interested in the issues and don’t “cotton to” the mudslinging or posturing which presaged the YEC exodus and more recently, the evolutionist exodus.
!
Because of the observer problem, in this case prejudice, men get into trouble when they superimpose "meaning" on hypotheses and scientific observations.
In the case of the theory of evolution - which does not define life much less ask or answer the question of the origin of life (abiogenesis/biogenesis) - the atheists embrace it as meaning God does not exist.
Conversely, in the case of the Intelligent Design hypothesis - which does not specify whether the "intelligent cause" is a phenomenon or an agent much less a specific phenomenon or agent - the creationists embrace it as meaning God does exist.
IMHO, creationists who yearn for physical or logical "proofs" should be looking at the beginning of space/time and physical causality per se - as well as the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physical systems [Wigner] - including information theory and molecular biology - to name a few. BTW, I see the unreasonable effectiveness of math as God's copyright notice on this physical Creation. But that's for another thread or sidebar...
Nevertheless, it troubles me whenever a Christian insists that he cannot or would not believe, absent such "proofs."
We Christians believe that God was enfleshed in the body of a virgin, died on a Cross for our sins, was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God and will return again. We also believe that while He was enfleshed, He made water into wine, made the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to rise, walked on water and so on.
This is all reasonable to us Christians, who came to believe by a direct divine revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord and thus know of a certainty that He is - indeed we know Him personally.
So why would a Christian then turn right around and either demand "proof" or otherwise reject the testimony of God the Creator that He made all that there is in six days? Or the Noah flood, the ages of the patriarchs, Jonah and the Whale and so on.
Alas, people are disingenuous – believing what they want to believe and rejecting what they do not want to believe or consider to be an embarrassment.
Patrick Henry LEFT?.. Without an Opus?..
There were/are a few "Evos" that almost never made comments on political threads.. Must be they were DEMOCRATS.. and probably socialists since socialism is "Created" or caused by democracy(Mob Rule).. Yeah!... democracy is the social disease that causes socialism.. Which is Slavery by Government.. Must be why they never exposed themselves to the sharp eyes and minds of freepers politicical..
----------------------------
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
What do creationists gain from supporting ID, when ID affirms common descent and affirms mainstream science's age for the earth? And if the people who object to evolution have a scientific alternative, where is it?
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.