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

Discovery Institute ^ | June 22, 2007

[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.

[TXnMA]

"Indeed, [GourmetDan] does seek to defend a geocentric model."

Great!

~~~~~~~ <SARCASM>

Now, if we combine Gourmet Dan's model with my theory that

1) The earth is a flat, square plane (with four corners)

2) That it tumbles about its east and west corners each 24 hours

3) That it rotates in its plane and about the center of its plane once each 1.9543509 X 10⁹ years

4) The Creator is now having Sunday breakfast following His first Sabbath of rest following creation

We have a theory that fits both the YEC six-day young earth model -- and, actual, observable reality.

~~~~~~~ </SARCASM>

 

(Those unfamiliar with my posting history on this subject would be well-served by highlighting the entire lines containing the "~~~~~~~"s above...)

[cornelis]

I was eagerly awaiting what you meant by intellectually crippled.

[tacticalogic]

Time:... Why are things the way they are, and not some other way?...

"I just ride on 'em. I don't know what makes 'em work."

Oddball/Kelly's Heroes

[hosepipe]

LoL...

[TXnMA]

"Evolution produces designs. Not just pretty patterns like crystals, the result of molecular bonds, but true designs that solve structural problems."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are patterns in nature -- and, then, there are patterns like this hexagon at the north pole of Saturn: To what would you attribute it? Is it a "design"? Is it demonstrably not a "design"?

(...with discussion here.)

An earlier -- and much more detailed -- view, as well as a discussion, is available here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Not particularly trying to be argumentative with this one, js1138 -- just sharing another of the mysteries of our [very nearby] universe...)

OTOH, I would love to know how GourmetDan reconciles our abilities to position spacecraft to make photos like these -- in a geocentric (read, "egocentric") universe...

[js1138]

I was eagerly awaiting what you meant by intellectually crippled.

That would be failure to pick up on the meaning when I used the phrase.

[js1138]

There are patterns in nature -- and, then, there are patterns like this hexagon at the north pole of Saturn: To what would you attribute it? Is it a "design"? Is it demonstrably not a "design"?

I already stipulated that evolution produces solutions to problems -- not just pretty patterns.

[cornelis]

Failure of dialogue?

[raygun]

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."

Is it just me? I'll be frank with you: I'm an evangelist fool. But I'm not a foolish evangelist. No, the reason it can't be taught is that it is fallacious reasoning; ad ignorantiam.

Formally:

All irreducibly complex systems are dependent upon all of their components.

No irreducibly complex system can function without all their components.

No natural origin for any irreducible system is conceivable.

-----------------------

All irreducible systems were created according to design as they presently exist.

This is an argument from ignorance. An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof. All logic follows from presuppositions (or axiomatic statements). These presuppositions are not provable in and of themselves but are assumed to be true.

Given that the premises are true, then a valid argument is one that necessarily follows, and that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises A sound argument is one in which the forgoing is true and where the premises are indeed true.

"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."

Argumentum ad Populim?

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:

Wrong. The most inductive reason would be that critical thinking skills aren't taught.

[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.)

I don't know 'bout you: I can smell a "quote mine" from a parsec away.

Even so I personally dismiss "evolution" as fantasy, ID is positively illogical lunacy. Nowhere can it be found in the Scripture that I believe to be the Word of God advocating that I believe nonsense; illogic being just that.

[js1138]

If you’d like to discuss it, go back and read what I said, and what led up to it.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

That is beautiful and mysterious! I read the second link, but when I tried the first all I got was the jpg.

[TXnMA]

Must have messed up on pasting the URL into the anchor. Try this:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070627.html

G'nite -- busy day tomorrow...

Blessings!

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, whereas most theories do not preclude God the Creator - that fact is seldom offered.

[Alamo-Girl]

Ah, much better. Thank you, dear brother in Christ! May God bless you in everything.

[Alamo-Girl]

Feel free to devise an experiment to test this.

Evidently, those types of experiments are on the table:

Natural and Genetic Engineering of the Heat Shock Protein Hsp70 in Drosophila Melanogaster: Consequences for Thermotolerance

[.30Carbine]

"...you and I are in a single configuration, inside an instant.
An instant is not in time, time is in the instant."

A fascinating quote. Had to read it twice to get even the gist of it.

Words very worthy of contemplation, and I thank you for posting them here.

[js1138]

I don’t see the relevance. Explain it in your own words.

[GourmetDan]

"In that regard, and with the full understanding that my counsel will probably fall on deaf ears, I do offer a bit of advise to you or anyone who wishes to embrace either geocentricity or Young Earth Creationism in a general debate with scientists and mathematicians:"

Sadly, my advise [sic] seems to fall on deaf ears.

"A Christian's credibility will not be so viciously attacked if he lays aside arguments which rely on aether tests, dispute carbon dating, select quotes from years gone by and dispute the historical or geologic record. Mainstream scientists and mathematicians grab hold of these things to impeach everything else he has to say by mockery or derision."

Ah yes. Don't dispute what 'man' says is acceptable Biblical truth and you won't be attacked. Great logic.

"My arguments on these threads embrace the conventional wisdom that time is geometric - but I welcome brothers and sisters in Christ who embrace the rebuttal theory, that time is an illusion."

Time is not an illusion, it is a dimension. Additional dimensions would not be 'dimensions of time' and would not be bound by the dimension of time as the dimension of time is not bound by the first 3 dimensions.

[GourmetDan]

"Given how precisely well orbital mechanical calculations predict reality (i.e.our ability to steer spacecraft through complex orbital maneuvers to achieve precise positions near, say, Jupiter's moons) , to what "experimental evidence" to the contrary do you refer?"

Ernst Mach proved in the 1800's that the laws of geometry would be violated if there were any essential difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric model. Mathematic calculations should never be mistaken for an accurate view of reality.

I have posted quotes by Einstein and Hoyle showing that these scientists understood that there is no essential physical difference between a heliocentric and geocentric models. Follow the thread up.

Michelson-Morley and Airey's Failure were 2 experiments designed to detect the 'motion' of the earth through space. Both failed to detect any motion and the debate moved on to arguments attempting to explain why we fail to detect motion when we 'know' it moves. Heliocentrism is a belief, not an observable fact.