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.

[GodGunsGuts]

ping

[GodGunsGuts]

ping

[Clintonfatigued]

You can bet the politically correct types will come down on him for this. He seems like one of the older liberals, in which tolerance includes tolerance for conservatives and people of faith. There doesn’t seem to be very many of those around now.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You can bet the politically correct types will come down on him for this. He seems like one of the older liberals, in which tolerance includes tolerance for conservatives and people of faith. There doesn’t seem to be very many of those around now.

Perhaps there are a lot more who are afraid to speak up because of the consequences for doing so. That’s why it is incumbent upon all those who cherish freedom to break the Darwinian stranglehold on the ideology of science. Once the spell is broken, and the threat of force is removed, I have a feeling that many more like Dr. Turner will come out of the shadows.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I really don’t see how evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Personally I believe evolution is a wonderful thing for God to have built in to creation; an ever renewing adaptive creation. It frees God up to do other things, like help us to learn how not to keep killing each other. The funny thing is that while some in the scientific community point fingers at the ‘fanatical’ creationists, they themselves have become somewhat unscientific and fanatical by purporting that creation is inconsistent with science or evolution. The most accomplished scientists in the world cannot explain why we exist. The most creative and knowledgeable physicists can’t explain why the laws of physics are what they are, and cannot say with certainty that there isn’t someplace we don’t know of at which physical laws are different than what we perceive in our own observable universe. At some level it’s about humility.

[GodGunsGuts]

If you are speaking about variation within the created kinds, then we agree. But the Church of Darwin would have us believe that we DESCENDED from pre-biotic slime, through simple celled organisms, and so on down the line right down through the apes. The Bible is absolutely opposed to evolution in this sense.

[jdhighness]

This whole “creation Vs. evolution” debate would make our spiritual fathers quite upset, I would guess.

In fact, I would guess that an exegesis of the Bible would support a guided *evolution* way more than an instant Creation.

MAIN POINT: Check out Lecture 1 here

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php

No where in the entire Old Testament do they talk about God making a material universe. The Hebrew word for “Create” found in Genesis is “bar’a”. To *that* culture, bar’a meant “assign function”—NOT make out of nothing. Material structure is our concern; the ancients didn’t care about it, they cared about function/purpose.

God Bless,

Jonathan Highness

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Macro -evolutionary biology is still one of the few sciences that want us to believe that it is a fact even though it does not stand up to the scientific process.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Macro -evolutionary biology is still one of the few sciences that want us to believe that it is a fact even though it does not stand up to the scientific process.

Don’t forget about human-caused Global Warming!

[Hacksaw]

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."

And he is spot on. But here are the Predicted responses: He's not a "real" scientist (whatever that means); his school sucks so he doesn't count; he hasn't published enough papers; and a couple screens of cut-n-pastes.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Good point.

[AnalogReigns]

I don’t know what the Hebrew words are in Genesis, but however the process (or time period) He did it, God creating the Universe out of nothing, and He being distinct from that creation, is an essential to a Christian world view—just as essential as God being a trinity. (Also, if love is an essential part of God, then there has to be a plurality in God..that plurality being the trinity—along with an essential unity, God being one.)

Ex nihlo creation (not necessarily what we understand as “creationism”) is a philosophical essential. Evolution (as distinct from naturalist evolutionism...a philosophy) and ex nihlo creation don’t seem to have any necessary essential conflict, in my opinion.

[Stultis]

Perhaps there are a lot more who are afraid to speak up because of the consequences for doing so. [...] Once the spell is broken, and the threat of force is removed, I have a feeling that many more like Dr. Turner will come out of the shadows.

Sadly, I think your fear is exaggerated. Fact is the EVILution Conspiracy has gone totally soft. Our death squads stand idle almost a third of the time, and our concentration camps in the Galapagos hardly contain enough prisoners any more (barely 250,000!!!) to keep the fossil factories running.

The key Geological projects of the EVILution Conspiracy are on the verge of collapse. Soon we will no longer be able to keep moving billions of barrels of oil into the reservoirs were old-earth geology "predicts" it should be found. When that happens the jig is up! And then the collapse of the real conspiracy -- the one for which the whole EVILution conspiracy, vast as it is, is only a cover -- will follow as night follows day.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Sadly, I think your fear is exaggerated.

Don’t think the following EXAMPLES of ENFORCEMENT are lost on those who might otherwise consider speaking out:

Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was released from Mississippi University for Women after she delivered a lecture to a group of honors students on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory.

Days before his dissertation defense, Ohio State University graduate student Bryan Leonard was accused by Darwinist professors of “unethical human-subject experimentation” because he lectured students on scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.

Biologist Carolyn Crocker was banned from teaching evolution at George Mason University in Virginia simply because she mentioned Intelligent Design. The university later refused to renew her contract.

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet and an advocate of the scientific theory of intelligent design, lost his appeal to overturn the decision to deny him tenure at Iowa State University (ISU).

[GodGunsGuts]

Oh, it's not all about the threat of the stick. The Church of Darwin also offers the faithful numerous carrots:

19 June 2007

How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now? William Dembski

Here is Judge John E. Jones III receiving an honorary doctorate just six months after rendering his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover (check out Dickinson College’s reasons for conferring the degree). How many honorary doctorates has the Judge racked up since then? (I’m told four, but I have yet to confirm that.) Not bad for someone who went from head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to towering intellect of American jurisprudence....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/page/2/

[VOA]

bump

[Stultis]

That's just what I'm saying. Why have EVILutionists allowed these dissenters to live? Only a few years ago we would have at least kidnapped them, subjected them to psychoactive drugs and shock treatments, and turned them out as UFOlogists or holocaust deniers.

But now the powers that be think they can get by with having a handful of low level academics and hangers-on fired. FOOLS! You can't maintain a conspiracy of this magnitude without spilling barrels of blood. In the good old days we were even willing to kill Darwin himself to hide the truth! And the old codger still almost gave the whole thing away on his deathbed. That should be a lesson to the leaders of the conspiracy today, but unfortunately they have gone soft.

[Youngblood]

The Bible is absolutely opposed to evolution in this sense.

So what? What has the bible got to do with science?