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.
Believe it or not, I seldom pay attention to the name I am posting to. I just read through posts and respond if I have something to say. Obviously I recognize you and BB, but that is because you have been here a long time.
I understand that you are not a young earth creationist, and I think I have been clear about that in my posts to you.
But I can't recall seeing you confront people who make a hash out of their description of evolution, or their understanding of physics. And I have seen you express the idea that empiricism is deficient, even within the domain of science.
I find this rather odd, because scientists never hesitate to disagree with each other about facts that are in question or hypotheses that are questionable. Contrary to the way it is portrayed here, science is not a prayer thread where politeness and decorum prevent people from speaking out. If scientists did not speak out on things they think are fishy, there would be no quotes to mine, no "scientists against evolution," no exposed mistakes and hoaxes.
I care rather deeply that so many people are willing to make false statements, and that others are willing to let false statements pass.
Whatever. If you don’t with to respond then don’t. I do not need reading lessons.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
This hypothesis is tested often. I do not follow links. If I want to look something up I can look it up. I expect to find some kind of discussion here, not pointing at something and saying 'that says what I mean', because it doesn't--guaranteed.
Nice.
Whenever I see some of your posts, I know I'll be spending another hour or so gathering the background to comprehend it.
Since God created it all anyway, this is much to do about nothing.
Nope. He's still posting away, just not on this thread. I had to do some searching to find his name. I'm really no good at names.
Right, but it isn’t a link nor is it an appeal to authority. There are some fundamental errors happening, and most are due to not knowing what words signify. The rest are due to failure to properly predicate.
I guess the idea is that there's no morality except for having the Old and New Testaments, which is rubbish.
God's only claim to fame is giving us his list of moral actions. He didn't provide man with any useful information about surviving-- math, science, engineering, language, agriculture, etc. He gave us commandments, but the major commandment didn't relate to morality at all-- honoring God.
We didn't need God's revelation for mother's to love their babies, or men to love women, or men to seek truth and loyalty from a fellow man. The Golden Rule is self-evident and is found in most religions-- because there is self-interest at its core (caution: treat others like crap, and they might just treat you like crap-- so, be nice.). The Norse myths offered up these 9 things as virtues: Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industry, Self-Reliance, and Perseverance. They aren't laws or commandments, but goals and aspirations and they have nothing to do with the Hebrew God or his Son. Animals even exhibit primitive virtue-- joining each other to accomplish a task, care of their young, etc. Civilization can enact its own morality quite easily, because it falls apart without it-- there is a cause and effect that allows morality to be determined straightforwardly, and without inspiration from God.
Lewis also requires a Creator in his theory and that's not necessary (fallacy of false dilemma). It's also a false dilemma to say the choice of Creator, should you accept the existence of a Creator, is between an all-good Hebrew God and some all-bad Brute. Hell, aliens could have created us millions of years ago in a test tube as some high school science project and they abandoned us like the ant farm project the boy down the street submitted two years ago at the local science fair. Morality of any kind doesn't even follow logically from a Creator.
Again you are arguing from what Paul didn't write, and making inferences based on what you think he should have written. It's an argument from silence.
Our early Americans didn't write speeches and essays about how to be a good subject of King George.
Yes they did. They endured the King's abuses for a long time. Their armed rebellion was reluctant, and engaged in only after a multitude of entreaties.
They had the courage of their convictions and they didn't have God himself to protect them for doing his work.
Yes they did. "...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor..."
Haven't you ever read Patrick Henry's great speech?
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Cordially,
O.K. It was GourmetDan I was thinking of. Yeah, he's still posting here.
Was there yet another geocentrist you had in mind?
If you had ever read Lewis you would know that that is not what he said about morality. He actually wrote extensively of its universality.
And his reference to Brute and Blackquard is from A.E. Housman. Lewis is demonstrating that the moral condemnation (or praise) of anything on the presupposition of an impersonal, materialist universe is contradictory and self-refuting.
His point was, what is the universe being compared to when the materialist (who says the physical universe is all there ever was or will be) complains that some aspect of it is unjust or unfair? It is a futility that has never yet been successfully answered by the moralizing atheist.
Cordially,
Look out misanthropy.
The Bible teaches us man is worth nothing to God -- sure is a wonder why He's split himself off to actually become a man, die to save us from our alientation to God, and collect us to his bosom.
Indeed, the Good News is about eternal matters, which include the present. But eternal life with God vs. eternal alientation unto death is so important, the believers in God are taught to sacrifice themselves as "seed" taking the model of Christ, who if He were about justice, would not have allowed Himself to be murdered and we wouldn't have a chance at true happiness now, or eventually.
Your anti-Christian bias is now showing clearly. That is preecisely the kind of irrational mindset that causes those who falsely claim standards of science, to use that label as a mask for raging against The Creator.
Now that you'v blown your cover, feel very free to stop, or to keep flailing, either way, but I don't choose to feel obliged to defend reality against your vituperations, any further.
I know, that's tough.
Hi Stultis! I have great news: You are RIGHT! The presentation to the Linnean Society occurred in 1858, not 1859 as I alleged; and it was delivered in the form of a paper, not a public address. [You're right also in that I have never made a biographical study of the man. Is that necessary for an understanding of his theory?]
The paper's opening line was: "All nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature," and not "Nature is bloody in tooth and claw." If you have the text of the Linnean Society presentation before you, I think you can verify that.
In the Origin of Species, Darwin makes clear what he means about the nature of this "war":
There must be in every case a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. [Op. cit., New York: Mentor, 1958; p. 75. Italics added.]It seems Darwin had philosophical sympathies with Malthus and Hobbes.... Or am I reading that "wrong," too?
Now if the public record is correct to your satisfaction, may I ask you a question: What is the qualitative difference between Lord Tennyson's "Nature is bloody in tooth and claw," and Darwin's "All nature is at war..."? You suggested that Darwin was not the sort of man to engage in hyperbole. If so, then what does his statement mean to you?
Many thanks for the conversation so far, Stultis!
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.