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 big revolution is always just about to happen.LOL.
==Oh. So how do pathogens change to enable them to tolerate antibiotics? Maybe the Designer reaches in and changes that DNA? You do realize we can sequence DNA and show where these mutations have occurred, don’t you?
Boy, you guys really are behind the times:
Epigenetics: Genome, Meet Your Environment
As the evidence accumulates for epigenetics, researchers reacquire a taste for Lamarckism
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument
Here’s some more for you guys to chew on re: non-random mutation. Again, neo-Darwinism predicts the exact opposite. As I said before, IMHO it won’t be long before random mutation is overturned in favor of non-random/directed mutation (which of course will further vindicate ID/Creation Science):
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001127.html
“Leonard’s final dissertation committee did not meet those requirements. It was composed of his advisor, Paul Post from the technology education program area of the section for Math, Science and Technology; Glen R. Needham of the Department of Entomology in the College of Biological Sciences; and Robert DiSilvestro of the Department of Human Nutrition in the College of Human Ecology. For the final defense an Assistant Professor from the department of French & Italian in the College of Humanities was also assigned to the committee to monitor the procedure. Thus, there were no members from the science education program area on Leonard’s final dissertation committee.
What is more noteworthy is that there are no members of Leonard’s dissertation committee who are specialists in science education or in evolutionary biology, even though Leonard’s dissertation is specifically directed at methods of teaching evolutionary biology in public school science classes. The two senior tenured members of the committee, DiSilvestro and Needham, in fact share a single salient qualification: they have both publicly associated themselves with the intelligent design creationist movement in Ohio and elsewhere.
DiSilvestro is an original signer of the Discovery Institute’s A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism statement and testified for the Intelligent Design Network at the recent Kansas Kangaroo Court hearings, as did Leonard. According to his departmental profile, DiSilvestro’s professional interests are “Nutritional biochemistry and clinical nutrition of antioxidant nutrients and phytochemicals, especially in regard to inflammatory aspects of disease and exercise recovery; mineral and phytochemical effects on weight loss.” According to a transcript of a recording supplied by an attendee, DiSilvestro told the Kansas Kangaroo Court that he doesn’t use evolutionary theory in his own research.”
Very interesting...some sanity from the other side!
There is an "ID conspiracy". One of the earliest organizers is the Discovery Institute, the very people who generated this article in the first place. Their plan was outlined in the "wedge project" (please do read the link), and is nothing less than a conspiracy to replace existing science concepts with faith based philosophy.
I would say that 700 scientists is more than just a handful....
About 1%, to be approximate. Project Steve, an in-your-face parody of the petitions launched by the Discovery Institute gained it's 800th scientist named "Steve" to sign a petition in support for evolution in April. Since variations of the name "Steve" represents about 1% of the population, then evolutions 800 signatories named "Steve" trumps your overall list of 700. So if getting scientists to sign petitions is meaningful, you lose.
You wish.
And it's not like science doesn't like such revolutions. In fact, they operate on disruptions in the status quo. If everything were known, science could close their lab doors and go home.
So when does your anti-Darwin campaigner get his Nobel?
First, let's get something straight, religious materialism IS faith based philosophy. Second, I challenge you to find a single ID site that isn't open about the fact that they seek to overturn the religious materialism (worship of nature) of the Church of Darwin. Having said that, I am in full support of the Wedge Document, and if I was one of their number, I would have quite naturally created a very similar strategy to break the stranglehold of religious Darwinism on the ideology of science.
==Since variations of the name "Steve" represents about 1% of the population, then evolutions 800 signatories named "Steve" trumps your overall list of 700. So if getting scientists to sign petitions is meaningful, you lose.
I wear our underdog position as a badge of honor. Just about everytime two major scientific paradigms come into conflict, it is the underdog that wins in the end. So thanks for the words of encouragement...too bad your side is holding on to the short end of the stick.
If Borger or any of the other ID scientists won the Nobel, given the current climate, I would be extremely suspicious. So hopefully, Borger et al won’t win the politically/compromise-driven Nobel any time soon. However, there have been a number of Nobel prize winners who didn’t let on to the fact that they were ID proponents until after they won the prize. And to those scientists I say: For those who are about to DESTROY the Church of Darwin, we salute you!
You are on the wrong track.
The issue is not evolution vs creation. It is unintelligent natural forces vs intelligence.
Read, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicact/message/7763
So, ask the question:
Is evolution driven by blind natural forces, or by intelligence?
Similarly, the question can be asked: is creation done by blind natural forces or by intelligence?
Eg. the creation or evolution of your computer.
Another revolutionary finding, up there with Behe’s Newtonesque discoveries! Strangely unpublishd as yet, although I’m sure one or two conspiracy-minded journals have turned it away. And strangely absent from any discussion outside of the ISCID forum that I can see. Is everyone afraid to take on Mr Borger’s findings?
Your Borger guy mentions Darwin at the front of his piece. Intelligent scientists who are trying to take down widely accepted ideas would not begin their revolution by such a direct attack.
There are genuine scientists that, for example, dispute the expanding universe concept that's been generally accepted. But they don't state up front that they're goal is to destroy all the science that's based on an expanding universe. Instead, they speak directly at whatever piece of detail in the science that they can get a handle on, and allow other scientists to make their own conclusions that perhaps this new data overturns the existing paradigm.
Your guy Borger obviously isn't seriously interested in persuading the scientific community. He's writing for people outside of science, like you, who are numerous and will support him one way or another because it backs up your religious faith. He's free to do so, but don't pretend that he's doing real science. Those who attempt to bring ideas such as Borgers into science class are perpetuating fraud, because it's outside of science.
Take your ideas to philosophy class, or religion class, but attempting to hijack science via the Wedge Conspiracy, or the way the leftists have partially succeeded via their Gaia environmental movement should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the integrity of science.
Thankfully, there is a nearly unanimous rejection of your religious based creation science, and probably a majority of science that rejects the global warming crap, even though it's not portrayed that way in the media. Both creation science and enviromentalism are outside agendas that have attached themselves to science in an attempt to gain credibility. In the end, they will both fail.
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.
This is truly deplorable. As was the treatment of Dr. Sternberg at the Smithsonian, at the hands of thugs. And all evidently because certain people with a metaphysical commitment to materialism cannot brook the idea that there is anything purposeful in nature. And no one is to be allowed to disagree with them!
Thanks for this interesting post, GodGunsGuts. I hope Prof. Turner's wake-up call to his colleagues will be received.
It’s not a frontal attack, Borger is merely stating the obvious...that Darwin gave a key role to mutation to explain the origin of species. Borger’s second point is equally valid, namely, that the origin and nature of mutations is one of the most central question in biology. As biology attempts to answer this question, it would be silly to rule out epigenetics simply because it does not fit the neo-Darwinist paradigm of random mutation. Further, if non-random mutation is responsible for even a significant portion of phylogenetic changes, then “The consequence is that we may not be able to discriminate
between common descent and this common mechanism.” If true, this would turn phylogenetic analysis on its head, and many (if not all) phylogenetic evidence of common descent will have to be thrown out the window (in much the same way that the so-called genetic clock is increasingly looking like it will have to be thrown out the window). All of these developments favor ID/Creation Science. Likewise, these developments will increasing become a giant millstone around the neck of Darwinism...which, as you know, is increasing (not decreasingly!) being assaulted on all sides. Indeed, IMHO, pretty soon there won’t be enough left of Darwin’s materialist theory of origins to put under a microscope.
PS Did you also read the following? It comes from a “mainstream” science journal. LOL
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument
See link in post #74. It would appear that non-random mutation is going mainstream! LOL
It’s good new and it’s bad news. It’s bad news because it shows the lengths the Church of Darwin will go to protect their increasingly discredited theory of origins. It’s good know because it shows the lengths they are FORCED to go in order to protect their tenuous hold on the ideology of science.
I agree that it will be interesting to see where developments lead in this area and how evolutionary biology adapts to any relevant findings, but I think you're being just a little premature in your triumphalism!
==Is anyone ruling out the possible effects of epigenetic changes?
Read: non-random, directed mutation.
Despite all this, its the evidence that points to ID, not the philosophy.
We've talked already about the less than 1% of "scientists" that have signed on to Discovery Institutes petition. And that 1% is being very generous as many of those who have signed have significant conflict of interest problems regarding their religion and others can't seriously be labeled "scientists". But even so, how can you have the cajones to claim evolution is "increasingly discredited" given that this 1% hasn't changed in years, and is a low enough percentage to easily be considered the kook fringe of science?
With honesty like yours, I'm glad I rejected Christianity. I would hate for people to lump me in with people who would make claims such as you have.
"increasingly discredited". harrumph. 1% LOL.
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.