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.

[Texas Songwriter]

I ask you again, why are you afraid to answer my question? Ad hominems nothwithstanding. Please be rational and scientific, no conjecture.

[hosepipe]

[.. I ask you again, why are you afraid to answer my question? Ad hominems nothwithstanding. Please be rational and scientific, no conjecture. ..]

I see..... you don't care for an answer..
You want to get back to writing songs..

Thats O.K... some questions require W.O.R.K...
Are you a monkey in a metaphorical tree WATCHing other monkeys considering a Rolex watch?.. I am...

[Texas Songwriter]

I think your answer is clear to all who reads your post. If you wish to have a rational discussion feel free to write me. Thank you.

[hosepipe]

[.. If you wish to have a rational discussion feel free to write me. ..]

You appear to be looking for an easy answer..
Not all questions can even be answered..

"A man needs to know his limitations"- Dirty Harry..

[Texas Songwriter]

I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question?

[hosepipe]

[.. I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question? ..]

I did answer it.. SLAP SLAP... WAKE UP... you in there?..
Talk to me dude...

[narby]

The creative process which God chose to give us our cosmos and our lives (including our souls) could hardly be thought of as soulless, by any stretch of intellectual honesty. A cannot be made to mean not A.

Nice philosophy. But it's not science.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear hosepipe!

I really hesitated in responding because you and I have an inherent failure to communicate whenever we speak of geometry – dimensions in particular – because I use those terms (which include space and time) in the sense of geometric physics and you do not.

However, for the discussion, there are a few points I’d like to bring to the table:

The question “did the universe have a beginning?” was essentially settled as far as science is concerned when it determined by the measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960’s that the universe is indeed expanding and therefore had a beginning of real space and real time.

Every “steady state” or "infinite past" physical cosmology was discredited at that time – and since then, cosmologists have labored to theorize a physical cosmology which obviates the necessity of an uncaused cause of the beginning: space, time, physical causation itself.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

All physical cosmologies require geometry for physical causation. All of them require a beginning because of the geometry: big bang/inflationary model, multi-verse, multi-world, cyclic, brane theories, ekpyrotic, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.

Time is geometric. Space/time is a continuum.

The structure of space/time is such that for an observer near the vicinity of a black hole a week may elapse – while forty years elapse on earth. Likewise, for an observer traveling at the speed of one earth’s gravity (equivalence principle) 25.3 years may elapse – whereas 5x10¹⁰ years would elapse on earth.

For those interested in exploring how this can be, here is a particularly helpful animated introduction to special relativity. For general relativity, think of the space/time fabric as warped.

Eternity is time without boundaries, or more specifically infinity future.

But there is no infinity past. There was a real beginning of time.

So much for the math and science, now for the theology:

Time is part of the Creation – not a property of the Creator. The word “timelessness” would be more appropriate in speaking of Him, the uncaused cause, prime mover, Creator of “all that there is.”

Timelessness (not merely time without boundaries) is the appropriate concept when speaking of God the Father, as we can see from these passages:

But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. – Mark 13:32

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20

Of course, neither of these replies have much to do with your use of the word “time” or “dimension” – dear hosepipe – because you are using the terms poetically or philosophically.

[narby]

[Ok. Let's say God was the "first cause". Now you tell me what was the "first cause" that created God.] This is old hat, narby. Something is eternal. You're not well-read on this kind of reasoning, or are you?

Oh, now I get it. I must be "well read" in order to be so confused that the universe needs a creator, but the creator does not.

I suppose it takes a real intellectual to be able to understand something so illogical.

[js1138]

Whether it is unanswerable for you or not, there are only two possible answers.

That simply isn't true. the question is malformed. It is no more answerable by yes or no than My question to you: have you stopped having sex with your mother?

More is required of an answerable question than grammatical correctness.

[narby]

I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question?

Maybe because hosepipe and js1138 noticed that when I wouldn't give you an answer to your unanswerable question, you eventually used that as an excuse to ridicule me. I suspect that no matter what the answer you get you have a line of argument that eventually leads to you ridiculing your correspondent, no doubt to pump up your ego.

Don't you have anything more constructive to do?

[js1138]

In consonience with rational thought and scientific thought how do you explain the scientific evidence for an expanding universe, the radiation echo, and the second law of thermodynamics? One of the laws of rationality is that all events or occurrences or things had a cause. Do you believe the universe is eternal and without cause?

Hawking has given a cogent mathematical description of a universe without a beginning in time.

The word "eternal" makes hidden assumptions about the nature of time that are not relevant in a system lacking change.

Your question is in the same class of discussion as the assertion that gravity is the pressure we feel on our butts when we sit down. You assume that because you feel or see the passage of time, that your feeling about the nature of time is sufficient knowledge from which to draw conclusions about the birth and fate of existence. A rather arrogant assumption, in my humble opinion.

[js1138]

I suspect that no matter what the answer you get you have a line of argument that eventually leads to you ridiculing your correspondent, no doubt to pump up your ego.

Why do I keep thinking there is a really snappy follow-up question lurking behind this? Something on the order of, did the universe make itself, or, can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?

[unspun]

Nice philosophy. But it's not science.

Exactly. And from that, you might get your fist clue, FRiend.

[unspun]

However, if science is not founded on epistemological reality, it ceases to be science.

[hosepipe]

[.. The question “did the universe have a beginning?” was essentially settled as far as science is concerned when it determined by the measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960’s that the universe is indeed expanding and therefore had a beginning of real space and real time. ..]

Expanding?... maybe.. maybe not.. The Universe could be revolving.. not expanding.. Where is the center of the Universe?.. Since no one knows or can see the entire Universe or the "edge" of the Universe,even..that cannot be determined..

The Universe could be revolving appearing from "observation" from earth that it is Expanding.. or some other NOT readily measured reality.. i.e. dark energy/matter..

I do tend to be suspicious of what appears to be true in most things, true.. Call it a weakness.. That could originate from the fact I HATE PHOTONS.. If even there ARE photons.. If there are photons they are WAY TOO SLOW.. I hate them.. Maybe NOT hate but am suspicious of them(what they appear to be)..

True we do have quite different suspicions about how things "work".. If there are multiple dimensions beyond what we see(experience).. diagnosing anything "scientific" from "this" dimension could be humorous or a cartoon..

The meme; Events cannot happen without TIME for them to happen in.. could be error.. Time could be a mirror image of reality.. Reality being eternity.. Time would be very important to creatures that DIE... Past, present, future.. in a linear paradigm.. But those creatures could be spirits wearing a body suit(dimensional space suit)..

The bible says NOBODY dies.. only bodys die.. but "WE" whatever "WE" are.. do not die..

If "things/anything" could even BE eternal/infinite then the Universe could be eternal too.. Hard for a creature that can die to conceive of that though.. to them everything MUST have a beginning and/or end.. and a shape(GEOMETRY).. Could be that even "shape" is a mental construct.. i.e. dark energy/matter..

[js1138]

The Universe could be revolving.. not expanding..

I'm thinking that such scenarios have been investigated and do not fit the evidence. Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions.

[cornelis]

Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions.

What are they in comparison to a span of billions and billions?

[cornelis]

So you’re hedging. You want to frame the debate, badly.

[hosepipe]

[.. Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions. ..]

A mere hundred years ago the medical establishment regularly ordered laudanum(opium + mercuric compounds) to be given as MEDICINE...... even into the 20's and beyond in certain parts of the world..

Currently physics cannot connect the micro to the macro world.. Relativity and Quantum mechanics do not agree.. I may have wored this wrong but you get the idea..

A problem?.. Nah! we are only humans..