Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

To be clear, you are not speaking of creationists but rather, Young Earth Creationists.

Most creationists are not YEC and have no problem with the age of the universe though they may have disputes among themselves about the origin of man and/or other biological life (from a previous post of mine:)

The Jewish mystics claim that God will hold us to account if fail to notice, to inquire, to try and understand the world around us. I agree (emphasis mine):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. - Romans 1:18-21

The Christian or Jew looks at Creation and sees a revelation of the Creator (Psalms 19:1-3) whereas others see a different context (e.g. Buddhism) or no context at all (atheism/agnosticism.)

Also, the Jews see the Torah as a direct revelation of God. We Christians see all of Scripture as a revelation of God. Moreover we Christians see the Father's most important revelations in Himself - in the Person of Jesus Christ and in the indwelling Holy Spirit.

But we are all individuals and tend to understand things somewhat differently. Moreover - at the forefront of these debates - and fueling resentments is the different understanding among Christians concerning the creation of man which derives, not from science, but from our understanding of Scripture.

Specifically, we Christians have different interpretations of Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48: one side says that Adam was the first mortal man and the other says that Adam was the first ensouled man. Thus, the interpretation among Christians concerning Genesis 1-3 (the origin of man) cuts this way:

Young Earth Creationism which says that Adam was the first mortal man and therefore the physical evidence must support a young earth of some 6000 years of age in proper or absolute time.

Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that Adam was the first mortal man and that God created an old looking universe some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.

Old Earth Creationism which says that Adam was the first ensouled man, that the universe is some 15 billion years old in proper or absolute time, that evolution occurred and Adam was ensouled some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.

Special Creationism which says that Adam was created some 6000 years ago in some unspecified time and place.

My view – which is akin to Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder's is that we must consider both relativity and inflationary theory – that some 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates is equal to 6 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates. There is no conflict with Genesis 1.

I go a bit further than Schroeder in asserting that God is the author of Genesis and the only observer of His own Creation and thus we must look at those Scriptures from the inception perspective until Adam is banished to mortality at the end of chapter 3, at which point the space/time perspective changes to Adamic man.

Therefore, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:4-5) For Scriptural evidence I point to these:

The tree of life is in the center of Eden (Gen 2:9) and Paradise (Rev 2:7).

God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)

God’s curse to Adam was that he would die in the day (Gen 2:17) he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil v that he died at age 930 (Gen 5:5) and that 1,000 years to man (Adamic perspective) should be understood as a “day” to God (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8, Epistle of Barnabas, Enoch, et al).

The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Eden.

hosepipe has indicated that his Christian view is not represented on the above, i.e. that Adam is a metaphor, Creation week is a metaphor, etc.

In sum - though I do not recall seeing a poll on the subject - it seems to me that most Christians and Jews would embrace the Intelligent Design hypothesis over Young Earth Creationism.

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.