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.
And it's too much pressure on you to answer my questions. ;)
It's okay. . .I don't want to be responsible for getting your blood pressure up. Have a nice day.
And sometines not. Usually not, IMHO.
But remember your Aristotle. Some principles are demonstrable, others not. First principles are axiomatic. Existence for example. Do you want to test existence by making it disappear first?
Whatever isn't demonstrable isn't observable, so that doesn't seem to be respondent to the question.
You have been consistent in this, and I thank you for it.
I vote "nay" and "yea" on common descent. Abiogenesis [life from non-life] is impossible on the basis of information content.
That is simply a refined version of the Second Law argument against evolution. My objection to such formulations is that they suggest an end to certain lines of research.
At the moment it appears that Artificial Intelligence is an impossibility. Further fallout from the claustral hypothesis.
That is simply a refined version of the Second Law argument against evolution. My objection to such formulations is that they suggest an end to certain lines of research.
My objection is that they are bad science, and misapply the Second Law.
This puts us at a situation of tension between dogma and observation, and while it is given that either one may be in error that appears to be of little consequence, since only observation is testable and even if it passes can be held suspect due to the "observer problem".
Of a truth, the formula in thermodynamics for Gibbs entropy is very similar to Shannon. This discussion is illuminating:
But, at a more philosophical level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics. For example, adding heat to a system increases its thermodynamic entropy because it increases the number of possible microscopic states that it could be in, thus making any complete state description longer. (See article: maximum entropy thermodynamics). Maxwell's demon (hypothetically) reduces the thermodynamic entropy of a system using information about the states of individual molecules; but, as Landauer (from 1961) and co-workers have shown, the demon himself must increase his own thermodynamic entropy in the process, by at least the amount of Shannon information he proposes to first acquire and store; and so the total entropy does not decrease (which resolves the paradox).
IOW, even though I aver that abiogenesis is impossible due to information content - I am glad to see it researched. But if the investigators only look at the physical/chemical they will get no further than Miller/Urey. They need to follow Wimmer's lead, and look to the information content. Likewise, I consider the race to find the source of information in the universe to be a good thing.
Oh, and I should mention that it has always been a Jewish mystic understanding that we will be held accountable before God for asking questions about this physical world. IOW, God wants us to look and see. That is also Scriptural to us as Christians:
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 heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
The scientists who are studying these issues are the one's whose opinions count. That's harsh, but that's the way it works in science.
LOLOL! I laugh at the arrogance of science.
What happens on this earth is insignificant over the age of the universe much less eternity.
A thing only matters if God wills it. His opinion is the only one that counts.
To God be the glory.
I see that you have now abandoned even the pretense of doing science or of following the scientific method.
bookmarking
Excellent post, A-G. Rather than information, I’m still more interested in the definition of “life” itself. It strikes me as cart-before-horse to conclude that anything can come up with “life” until we define what life is.
So far as this article is concerned, it strikes me that any field should teach it’s weaknesses. I also think it should teach its major opposition.
JMHO.
Have a blessed day, sister, and may the Father of All guide your path and your thoughts this day through His Spirit in the truth of His Son, the Logos of the universe.
Methodological naturalism sets the boundary of science to that which science can address, i.e. to whatever extent nature is knowable and predictable, whatever the explanation for a thing is, it will be natural, or material, or physical.
It is not reality, it is a reduction of it. The reduction is tied to physical causation per se.
To paraphrase and extend the wisdom of Bohr, "meaning" is the domain of theology and philosophy. Or to put it another way, science looks for facts whereas theology/philosophy looks for truth.
Also, the many Jewish and Christians scientists over the ages (and upon whose shoulders scientists of today now stand) - understood their limitations without abandoning their faith in God.
You have failed to follow in their footsteps.
You admitted (above) that you will not follow the scientific method. The scientists you cite made their contributions by following the scientific method.
You are strictly, by your own admission, a religious apologist. You should not even presume to hold scientific opinions because you do not meet the qualifications for doing so.
My bias to information in the abiogenesis/biogenesis inquiry is because I have personally concluded that the difference between life v non-life/death in nature is information. Information is the action (successful communication) not the message (DNA, tRNA).
When a thing (whether an individual cell, function or organism) - is successfully communicating in nature, it is alive. When it ceases to communicate, it is dead. If it never could communicate, it is non-life.
The Shannon model accommodates all the bizarre forms, e.g. bacterial spores, viruses, viroids, prions, mimiviruses - either as autonomous messages, non-autonomous broadcast messages or noise.
The Miller/Urey experiments got no further than creating amino acids. Then again, they didn't know about the information side of life. Wimmer, on the other hand, who bootstrapped the polio virus in a lab - was successful because he began with the existing message itself.
Of course, we Christians realize that information will trace back to the Logos, the Living Word of God. But science, IMHO, should continue its pursuit - looking for a source of information in the universe. It is after all in the business of physical causation.
May God ever bless you, dear xzins!
1. Observation is testable.But dogma that is formulated from observation is obviously testable. The key point here is that there are kinds of dogma. If you define dogma such that it can't be tested, there's no need for any logical hoopla.
2. Dogma is not observation.
3. If dogma is testable, it would be observable.
4. Therefore dogma is untestable.
This reminds me of another one:
1. tacticalogic is always right
2. if tacticalogic is wrong, see #1
They simply have not yet discovered the claustral hypothesis. What do you make of John 5:30?
This appears to be something developed fairly recently. Someone can decide if he has been following the scientific method by whether his paper is published in one of the refereed scientific journals, which is to say, it is a consensus whether he has been doing science or not.
Again I aver that methodological naturalism reduces the scope of inquiry for science and therefore it cannot investigate truth. That is the domain of theology and philosophy.
Mathematics has no such boundaries, nor does it have a problem with the epistemic divide.
You say you test dogma by testing the observations it's based on, provided it's based on observation with no mention of how you test it if it isn't. It seems to be generally agreed that dogma isn't subject to the "observer problem", so it seems a little problematic to test it by testing the observations it's based on.
I didn't define dogma "such that it is untestable", I'm simply looking at the definitions and rules of logic being applied and finding they make it untestable for all practical purposes.
If it wasn't, I don't believe we'd be having the difficulty we are coming up with a straightforwad answer to the question of how to test 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.