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.
You are strictly, by your own admission, a religious apologist. You should not even presume to hold scientific opinions because you do not meet the qualifications for doing so.Such attempts to impeach my credibility are merely amusing.
Again I aver that methodological naturalism reduces the scope of inquiry for science and therefore it cannot investigate truth. That is the domain of theology and philosophy.
The only point I have been discussing is your credibility in the fields of science. You keep making statements about science, but you have, by your own posts, shown that you do not have the qualification (adherence to the scientific method) to make those statements.
This is further demonstrated by a comment you made a few weeks ago, "The most certain - and therefore, highest priority - type of knowledge for me is divine revelation."
Because you have abandoned the scientific method, and have accepted "divine revelation" as the most certain type of knowledge, you are absolutely unqualified to make pronouncements about science.
Further, you have given up the one tool you could have used to objectively compare and evaluate "divine revelations" -- of which millions are claimed. You are left with your own personal belief system and no way to evaluate it against others' belief systems.
You are reduced to claiming your's is the right one because you believe it and using rhetoric, theology, and metaphysics to try to justify your a priori belief.
Please don't mistake that for doing science.
Excuse me Coyoteman, but Alamo-Girl did no such thing! All she suggested was that methodological naturalism is a fine tool within its proper scope; i.e., dealing with observables in physical nature. Although clearly there's more to nature than the purely physical, science has no "purchase" on questions relating to things that aren't physical (such things as information, consciousness, etc., even the physical laws themselves). You need philosophy and/or theology to engage such questions, because they are not suitable objects for scientific methodologies, dealing as they do with non-observables, or even what philosophy calls "non-existent reality." [I.e., you have "existent" reality" (the physical) and "non-existent reality" (the non-physical, yet nonetheless real). And they work together.]
The trick is to properly qualify the questions in order to determine which is the appropriate "tool set" to be used; and then to remain aware of "which hat" one is wearing -- that of the scientist or that of the philosopher/theologian. I personally think that few people can handle these distinctions as well and as honestly as Alamo-Girl.
On the other hand, I often get the impression reading you that you believe anything that is not physical or directly observable -- anything, that is, that the scientific method cannot be applied to -- simply doesn't exist. This would make you a philosopher, or even a theologian, in a certain way; but I notice you do not seem to recognize that.
Well, my two cents...FWIW.
So true.. Humility can escape us(humans) at any moment.. Trap it in a cage(dogma) and it can squeeze through the bars.. How can observers share observations in humility?..
Answer: Humor and waiting for the punch line.. Not all jokes are good but there is a little truth in a good joke.. Not total truth but a little truth.. A seeker of truth is grateful for the attempt.. If that makes all scientists comedians so be it..
First, in context with verse 30 emphasized:
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. - John 5:24-30
He is the express image of the Father's Person.
There is no “bright red line” between the Father and the Son. The Father’s will is the Son’s will.
And so it is with us Christians:
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. – John 15:1-5
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Col 3:3
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23
That's not an argument, either. It's an intellectual tantrum, to borrow a phrase. See Category Error
"A category error occurs when someone acts as though some object had properties which it does not or cannot have. The reason why it cannot have those properties is because the properties belong to objects in some other category or class."
And since the notion of "crippled" cognitive equipment is unintelligible without the presupposition of it having being designed for some purpose, perhaps you can provide in the first place an explanation of the notion of intellectual deficiency, flaw, or dysfunction in relation to something that was not designed, and merely the result of blind materialistic, evolutionary forces. It makes sense to say that my lawnmower isn't functioning as it ought to when it won't start because it was designed for a purpose. But what's with this notion of intellectual "dysfunction" or intellectual "cripples" in a universe devoid of aim and purpose, and nothing but the product of brute physical forces? What sense does it make to imply that some physical forces of cognitive equipment are not functioning as they ought, when they were not designed with any aim or purpose in mind in the first place? One might as well insult the moon for it's orbit around the earth.
Cordially,
Jeepers, Coyoteman, you are jumping to (unwarranted) conclusions again...
Are you claiming to have no "a priori beliefs?"
Her comment was:
LOLOL! I laugh at the arrogance of science.And in another post she stated:What happens on this earth is insignificant over the age of the universe much less eternity.
A thing only matters if God wills it. His opinion is the only one that counts.
To God be the glory.
The most certain - and therefore, highest priority - type of knowledge for me is divine revelation.To me this is not suggesting that "methodological naturalism is a fine tool within its proper scope." It is turning one's back on science.
One who turns one's back on science has no right to opinions on science as they do not have the qualifications to justify such opinions. And if one is doing philosophy or some of those other squishy subjects, most scientists simply don't care what they have to say anyway.
On the other hand, I often get the impression reading you that you believe anything that is not physical or directly observable -- anything, that is, that the scientific method cannot be applied to -- simply doesn't exist.
Explaining or interpreting things that are not physical or directly observable involve matters of opinion or a priori belief. When opinions or beliefs differ you have no objective way of discerning among them.
It has been mentioned on one of these threads that philosophers, for example, have been debating the same questions for 2,500 years with no progress toward an answer. Why don't all of you philosophers take your debate over into the back corner of the classroom and get back to us when you actually have something?
This would make you a philosopher, or even a theologian, in a certain way; but I notice you do not seem to recognize that.
Don't talk dirty!
Not to get too excited and spew scripture, which does little but obscure the point of interest in scenery (context of zero relevance) of undeterminate form and color, but the statement in John 5:30 is also made elsewhere and ought to stop most people short and make them wonder why they imagine they can actually do anything themselves such as think and reason. The same idea appears in Plotinus, roughtly the same time period although he wasn’t Christian per se, and Leibniz who continues to be either ignored or misread. It has to do with free will. They even had a word for it, volle, and a word for this new claustral thing, nolle. Seems they knew about it 2000 years ago and chemical neuroscience has merely found the particular brain structure where it happens. Also William Law spoke of this at length and Jacob Boehme. Maybe Boehme can be dismissed as a neo-gnostic, but Law has yet to be topped for preaching his point. Freud had a clue also but did not deliver anything but some odd analogy.
I will have to see if Thomas ‘streetwise’ Aquinas had anything to say on this.
Brilliantly said, Diamond!
And yet we have it submitted that the search for truth is the domain of the theologians.......
Of course you do! You look at their respective "fruits," or effects, in the real world, and make a comparison; from which one can draw reasonable inferences.
Hoo Wee.. you're puffed up like a cat poised sidewise trying to appear larger than you are.. Hissssing..
AND you; who appointed you science monitor..
Is "Anti-Divine Revelation" the Holy Grail?..
You still have not told us What matter is, YET?..
WELL... What is it?..
Not my field.
Is 2+2=4?... theological?.. Any that say it's 3 or 5 are merely WRONG.. ugh!.. UNtrue
Just so if "Survival of the fittest" ultimately produced a lifeform that asked, WHO and WHAT IS GOD?.. And science says there is NO GOD.. Are scientists(Dawkins) deluded?..
Amazing that most questions merge at some point..
LOLOL! And thank you for the compliment.
All Christians have received at least one, direct divine revelation from God – when it dawned in us that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. – Matt 16:17
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Evidently, you do not know Him. But I do. I’ve known Him personally for nearly a half century.
When the day comes that you meet Him – and that day will come – then you will understand that our mortal sensory perception and reasoning has ever been constrained by our being anchored “in” space/time. Our vision and minds are limited to four dimensions.
When the “blinders” are removed – and you can see what we Christians see, and hear what we Christians hear – then you will realize that physical reality is but a fraction of the Father’s revelation – not the whole of it (the emphasized one below.)
God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways: through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ by Whom and for Whom every thing is made, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, through Scriptures and through Creation, both spiritual and physical.
If one is not aware of – or does not acknowledge the existence of - the other divine revelations, then he will surely not appreciate many of my comments. But that in itself does not impeach my credibility concerning math or science.
Indeed, those who are aware of the “rest of the story” – no doubt also see physical reality in context with “all that there is.”
Which results in difference of opinions and beliefs about who does and doesn't suffer from the "observer problem", it seems.
CUTE!... So then.. you just chimed in to get the dogs to chase you?..
BAD KITTY..
Just exactly when, and by who's proclamation did Dawkins become science personified?
I'm not interested in helping you start a flame war. If we're down to dismissal and derision then I'm done with it.
Everybody "suffers" from the observer problem! It cannot be obviated under any conditions at all. It deals with our limited perspective as cognizing human beings that results in necessarily partial knowledge.
IOW, "the observer problem" is not a stick with which to beat one's opponent; it is a universal human condition. I have it; you have it; we all have it.
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.