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.
It flows better when warm, and serves as a vehicle for epithets and perjoratives.
If it is not physical, and observable, how do you know "it" even exists? How do you know it's "real or relevant or true" if you can't observe it?
I disparage these "squishy" subjects because I do not see rational method of deciding among competing claims. Philosophy appears to be more opinion than anything else (with lots of verbiage but a backlog of 2,500+ years of unanswered questions). Theology depends on divine revelation. That brings up the question of whose revelation is the most divine. And how do you judge in a non-subjective way between multiple claims of "my divine revelation is TRVTH while your is tripe?" The normal answer is "my belief is logical, straightforward and true; your belief is a silly cult." That gets us nowhere.
Science is a useful tool for improving the lot of mankind, but when it becomes an end in itself, instead of a means to an end, that’s when problems come up.
And when philosophy and the other squishy subjects become the end in themselves, where do you find yourself? Arguing over philosophy, going around and around in circles for 2,500 years without defining a method, let alone getting any real answers. Arguing over theology, when there is no evidence on any side of the issue--its all belief and divine revelation. The one with the most believers, the most vociferous believers, or the most vicious believers, is likely to win.
No thanks. I'll stick to science. At least science has a method that has been shown to work, and has a way of discarding marginal or outdated ideas.
I'm in the presence of an artist.. ;)~.,.,.
If the correspondent has ammunition, he uses it - if not, he throws spitwads. LOL!
I never said you did. I am speaking of the heliocentric model that ignores the rest of the universe. You know, the commonly accepted heliocentric model.
"So there's no reason to consider an earth-centered reference system as any more "real" than any other, then. Not really any point in any of this."
The point has always been to show that the geocentric model is just as acceptable as the heliocentric model. People think that the heliocentric model has been 'proved' and that the geocentric model is therefore invalid. All I have been saying all along is that is not the case. The heliocentric model has not been 'proved' and the geocentric model is still valid.
In some cases I think the issue is a lack of effort. The teachings that are provided in many Sunday worship services and on television usually go only a little beyond milk. Regardless of whether this is appropriate the responsibility rests with the individual (after a point) to obtain solid food. Scripture is specific in calling us to study. This study, first and foremost should be of Scripture, but I believe we are also called to study all kinds of other areas in support of our faith. It is maddening to see the debates on FR where it is obvious that the Christian doesn’t even have a rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary theory. To be fair, it seems by comparison that those who support the evolution side are completely unfamiliar with scripture, but the debate is almost never on that side of the issue. When Paul (I’m going on memory here so I hope I have it correct) spoke from Mars hill in Athens his comments indicate that he had spent time studying the religion of the people there. He brought them the gospel of Christ with their view as the starting point. Too many Christians are ignorant of science because they have not the faith to tackle an opposing viewpoint. And they lack the faith because they have not studied scripture so that they can provide anything beyond a rudimentary understanding of what they believe. Why they believe it is not there.
God, in His entirety, is incomprehensible to us, but that does not mean we can set aside what He has revealed about Himself. I think it is very dangerous, specifically in the way I described in my initial post, to place more weight on what we experience, such as children’s smiles and sunsets, than on the inspired word of God. Nor is it at all safe to conclude that since the details of creation are beyond our comprehension, the account that God built Adam from the dust of the earth must be allegorical; it does not follow logically. I can tell my four year old that when I mix the stuff that looks like water (but smells funny) with white powder it bubbles and foams. That doesn’t nullify the fact that acidic vinegar and baking soda react together on a molecular level to release co2 gas and form a salt.
God does have many attributes including love and justice. It is because of God’s love that He came to us in human form and allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross as a payment for our sin debt. But if God were not also just why would the debt need to be paid in the first place? You mention that in your faith God absolutely abhors hate. I am curious as to where you obtained that attribute. If it is supported in scripture then it should be an easy reference. If it is supported simply in your experience then why isn’t it completely valid for someone else with different experiences to conclude that God is hate?
I am concerned that you are on a very slippery logical slope. I am convinced that you are sincere, but (please forgive the comparison) so were the pilots of the airliners on 9/11, and they were sincerely wrong. I urge you to take a good hard look at what you base your faith upon. Do some research into scripture regarding the original Hebrew and Greek texts and how we have what we have now. Jewish scholars have claimed that Isaiah 53 is in error – that it does not belong in the book. But when ancient copies of Isaiah were found guess what was there? Go on the internet and read about a man named Simon Greenleaf – who he was, what his occupation was, what he did and what he concluded. Here is one place to start: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html . God bless you my friend.
To everyone else…We now return your thread to its regularly scheduled flaming. Tell Jack hi for me!
I wouldn’t go that far. He would have been interesting for a while at a Mensa party, maybe good for a twenty minute talk after dinner.
You are definitely hard to impress, RightWhale, if you don't find William James impressive.
To ask the question is to answer it. Does your question itself has mass or extention into space? If not, you are have already presupposed that things exist that are not physical. Propositions, numbers, laws of logic, morality, meaning, etc are all examples of real things that are not physical things, yet, if such things did not exist your question would be unintelligible.
Cordially,
Kant though, Kant could have held the dinner spellbound for thirty minutes. Very popular speaker. Schopenhauer, maybe five minutes before somebody said, ‘we get it already! what’s for dessert?’
You are on the right track, but terminology will be an insuperable barrier to further progress of that train, as it is to all discussion on this BBS.
These things are human constructs; they may not be physical (language itself, for example), but there is no doubt that they are observable. Otherwise what would linguists do? (I always did like linguistic prehistory.)
What I consider the squishy subjects deal in the "why" of things. The squishy subjects to me are those fields where opinion and other intangibles (e.g., revelation) serve the same function as evidence does in the physical sciences.
We have the habit of often asking 'why' when we should be asking 'how.' 'Why' questions presuppose purpose. Purpose implies all kinds of fundamental structure that these threads are supposedly trying to find without presupposition, so can sidetrack the thread instantly.
LOL!!!! Whatever floats your boat RightWhale!
Your opinion is noted..
Apparently you consider evolution to be a 'squishy' subject since you believe your 'opinions' to be scientific in the area of 'interpreting skull series'. Any other 'squishy' areas where your opinions are equal to evidence, Coyoteman?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685030/posts?page=493#493
"I follow the scientific method, which has outlined a procedure for dealing with different kinds of evidence. I have studied those skulls at some length in grad school, as well as evolution (two of my four fields for the Ph.D. exams were human osteology and fossil man). Accordingly, I do not regard my opinions in this area as metaphysical but scientific."
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.