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.

[RightWhale]

Slavery is wrong because it regards a person as being less than what God created him to be

Now we have the XIVth Amend which allowed legal decision to declare a Corporation a legal person--a person that can own private property and donate to political campaigns and that person we can own, buy and sell, not a block from where slaves used to be bought and sold. Seems odd to abolish slavery and immediately reinstitute it in a slightly different form as if Commerce requires it.

[RightWhale]

The implication of Godel’s theorems is that scientists are just as subject to faith as non-scientists.

Hope, maybe, dashed hope. They are disabused of all that going on 3/4 century.

[GunRunner]

As it turned out, in time people "saw the light," and the institution of slavery in the West disappeared, thanks largely to eloquent, dedicated Christians, such as Wilberforce....

There is a point to be made (and a good one at that), that religion, specifically Christianity, made the institution of slavery last much longer than it need be.

Read the writings of Jefferson Davis or other Confederates. They specifically cite the Bible as a reference condoning slavery. Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating it as an institution.

The simple fact is that while you see the coming of Jesus as the arbiter in eliminating injustice and forming new covenants, I see the lack of condemnation for slavery in the OT just another bit of evidence that it was written by men stuck in their own time, not by divine providence.

[papagall]

Please alert me also when you relate Goedel’s incompleteness theorum to the anthropic principle and the universe as a whole ... this should prove very interesting indeed, beyond my simple mind probably, but interesting never the less.

[hosepipe]

[... In regard to the writers of the Old Testament, in their time slavery as an institution was just a part of the natural social landscape, usually involving spoils of war; and it certainly wasn't confined to black persons. It took the Incarnation of Jesus before the world would be taught that slavery is wrong, for the reasons I gave above. ..]

That was a lovely piece/essay on God in the old testament and beyond..

Many (moderns) who bleed themselves over SLAVERY openly and with the stink of prejudice overlook that SOCIALISM is exactly Slavery by Government.. and socialism is caused by democracy.. and thats WHY we in the U.S. have a republic, a unique republic never before or since been replicated anywhere at any time even partially.. The U.S. system is NOT A DEMOCRACY.. Three WORDS are omitted (on purpose) from the American Constitution 1) democracy.. 2) democratic.. 3) democrat.. by design.. And almost all Americans are not schooled to know the difference between privileges and RIGHTS.. especially UNalienable rights..

Pity... If the government can(is allowed) TAX something you OWN it is RENTING IT TO YOU... Thats slavery at best and prison at worst..

[Stultis]

in time people "saw the light," and the institution of slavery in the West disappeared, thanks largely to eloquent, dedicated Christians, such as Wilberforce....

Don't forget the small contributions of a certain English naturalist, who included the following red hot anti-slavery jeremiad (among several others of the like) in his best selling scientific travelogue:

On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil, I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of you wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin."

Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle, Chapter XXI

[hosepipe]

[.. Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating it(slavery) as an institution. ..]

Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete, AND DID..

Christianty is a renegade religion.. There has always been a core of "christians" that did not belong to any "religion" from day one.. Christian religions are clubs.. as any religion is..

Being born again does not enroll you in a club..

[betty boop]

There is a point to be made (and a good one at that), that religion, specifically Christianity, made the institution of slavery last much longer than it need be.

Read the writings of Jefferson Davis or other Confederates. They specifically cite the Bible as a reference condoning slavery. Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating it as an institution.

I will answer your point as follows. You make no distinction whatsoever between "religiosity" and "theology." The former assumes institutional form. The latter does not: it is the on-going search for God which has characterized the human race since time immemorial [as my friend hosepipe puts it, humans just naturally tend "to evolve toward God;" that is the essence of what it means to be fully human].

Theology is not a religious sect nor church. It is the intellectual, moral, divinely-informed foundation of the sects, of the churches. Christian theology, for instance, expresses through many different institutional forms, or particular churches. There is a distinction of category needed here.

When I speak, I speak as the observer that I am, who is Christian. I always try to speak in terms of Christian theology -- as inspired by the New Testament primarily, together with its root, the Old Testament -- not in terms of the doctrines of any particular church. My preference is always for unity, not dissociation, especially where the Body of Christ is concerned.

Jefferson Davis was not a theologian. A huge part of his motivation was States' Rights: The sovereign state is a covenant of its people who have the right to determine and manage their own affairs. Of course, the "affairs" of a goodly part of the Confederacy required at least acquiescence to, if not outright defense of, the morally reprehensible system of slavery. Their agricultural model was wrong-headed to begin with, to put it mildly (and ultimately could not have survived as an economic proposition, given the rise of the more efficient, industrial economy). As you know, America waged a civil war over these issues, the bloodiest war that Americans have ever fought in our history.

Slavery ended first in Great Britain, thanks to William Wilberforce and his associates.

In your last you said in so many words, why didn't God step in and change things?

Well maybe that's just exactly what He did, through the spiritual insight and Christian commitment of Wilberforce and his colleagues....

Just possibly, God prefers to work through such men as He calls -- enlightened by the Holy Spirit -- as His "stewards" and even "co-creators," with Him and in Him....

On these grounds, I wholly disagree with your statement: "Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating [slavery] as an institution."

Jeepers, GunRunner: Wilberforce and his friends were "the camel's nose in the tent" on the slavery issue. They drove the issue with such passionate intensity, as a profound moral and spiritual problem, as an appeal to Christian conscience (and their audience was Christian) until virtually no rational argument could be advanced against their (Christian) case.

That was the death-knell of slavery, right there.

Thanks for writing, GunRunner!

[Coyoteman]

You wrote to Gunrunner:

I wholly disagree with your statement: "Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating [slavery] as an institution."

Are you aware that, based on Biblical passages, some Freepers are not opposed to slavery?

This was written by a Freeper within the past two years:

My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.

The comment was removed by a moderator, but survives in subsequent posts. (I can FRmail the URL to you if you want, but I see no point in posting further details on this thread.)

The point of my post is that Gunrunner's comment "Read the writings of Jefferson Davis or other Confederates. They specifically cite the Bible as a reference condoning slavery" is not limited to a century and a half ago. Some Biblical literalists apparently still find nothing wrong with slavery.

[betty boop]

Other than arguing that “nature is cruel,” it being all about the “survival of the fittest” (and in Darwin’s terms, these poor miserable folks whose ill-treatment he “deplored” had little fitness/survival value anyway, and so their ultimate fate was a foregone conclusion), in what way did Darwin do anything at all to eliminate slavery? There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings. “Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.” And his theory dictates that “the best men win” in the end anyway. And isn’t that “good?”

[hosepipe]

[.. Are you aware that, based on Biblical passages, some Freepers are not opposed to slavery? ..]

Some freepers are completely for Social Security as practiced by the current federal government.. The current SSA is PURE SOCIALISM as pure as anything Soviet Russia or Communist China ever enacted..

Socialism is Slavery by Government.. Some freepers don't even KNOW they are socialists.. Slavery is and has been a creative economic force.. 2500 years ago or today..

Whos SLAVE ARE YOU?...
"You gotta serve someone"- song by Bob Dylan

[Coyoteman]

Your understanding of “nature is cruel,” “survival of the fittest,” “nature is bloody in tooth and claw,” and “the best men win” is flawed.

First, just for the record, Darwin did not originate the term “survival of the fittest” -- that was introduced over a decade later.

But the main point is that at any given time there are probably thousands, or tens of thousands of adaptations competing against the environment for survival. Everything from skin color to brain size, lung capacity and hair form to those little chemical and enzymatic changes deep in the body. To summarize this as “survival of the fittest,” where fittest is interpreted as strongest (bloody in tooth and claw), is both incorrect and totally misleading.

Lets do an example; in the Mediterranean the skin color is kind of medium, supplemented by tanning ability. That ability to change skin color seasonally lets folks absorb more vitamin D in the winter, yet avoid most of the ultraviolet rays during the summer. Pretty good adaptation, eh? Folks to the north have lighter skin, while folks to the south have darker skin. Which is "fittest?"

Now multiply this by perhaps a thousand traits.

And realize that many traits will work contrary to others. Larger brain sizes mean more difficult births, for example. Sickle-cell anemia is no fun, but it conveys some resistance to malaria.

Its a very complicated subject, and one which we are only beginning to understand. But your comment...

There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings. “Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.” And his theory dictates that “the best men win” in the end anyway. And isn’t that “good?”

...just tries to make a mockery of it all through not understanding the science involved and wishing to discredit Darwin and Darwinism in any way possible.

And isn’t that “good?” No, boys and girls. That isn't good.

[hosepipe]

Hosepipe: SLAVE of Christ; exacting, expecting or demanding zero/no rights privliges or perks.. and consider myself extremely fortunate that I can serve in whatever capacity.. and will serve.. gratefully with joy in my heart to my LORD.. Thats he is my lord!... Which what LORD means.. Lord and Master.. Marantha Lord Jesus..

What is slavery? and in what degree? There is indeed degrees of slavery.. The Serfs in England NEVER paid more than 10% of their wages.. Can the average American say that?..

[GraniteStateConservative]

The point of these threads is so we can all better articulate our opinions on religion rather than to actually change minds. I am very thankful that JimRob allows religion threads.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

You may not be able to notice what you have written, but you rather clearly state that ID is under no obligation to identify and characteristics of the designer.

I’m speaking of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. You are speaking of “Intelligent Design” as if is a legal entity, a person or corporation.

The hypothesis refers to an “intelligent cause” not a “designer” – and no, the hypothesis has no obligation to identify whether the “intelligent cause” is a phenomenon or an agent – much less a specific phenomenon or agent.

The hypothesis holds when scientific evidence shows that there exists a direct effect/cause relationship between “certain features” and an “intelligent cause.”

As I have mentioned before, it should be obvious that “certain features” in offspring are the effect of the parents’ choice of mates (an intelligent cause.)

ID is intellectually vacuous…

To the contrary, it challenges the view that life has evolved by a random walk.

Jeepers, it should be only obvious that intelligent creatures choose their mates, good choices directly improving their chances for survival.

The concept of a “random” walk should be dismissed on the merits anyway.

After all, we cannot say something is random in the system when we don’t know – and can’t know – what the system “is.” For instance, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of pi may appear to be random when they are in fact highly determined. And we do not know - nor can we know - the full number and types of dimensions which make up physical reality.

Order cannot rise spontaneously from an unguided physical system. Period.

There are always guides to the system. At the very least, the guides include space, time, physical causation and physical laws.

Self-organizing complexity and cellular automata both require guides to the system.

The intelligent design hypothesis suggests that some of the guides are "intelligent." Again, it simply says that "certain features of life and the universe are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an unguided process such as natural selection."

… [ID] associates itself with people who are genuinely anti-science….

So what?! There are scientists who are anti-God. Should we reject science because some of the scientists offend us?

[unspun]

The point of these threads is so we can all better articulate our opinions on religion rather than to actually change minds. I am very thankful that JimRob allows religion threads.

Then it's good that "iron sharpens iron" -- presumably for the purpose of some kind of eventual good surgery or scything, else it becomes a "vanity."

[unspun]

Of course, where such a place as this causes one to learn more, that is good too, when what is learned is true -- which is a kind of change of mind.

[Stultis]

in what way did Darwin do anything at all to eliminate slavery?

Aside from his occasional published pejoration, and arguing the case for abolition forcefully person to person on every occasion that arose, I'm not aware that Darwin engaged in any further activism specifically in opposition to slavery. He did support the missionary movement, both with donations and in laudatory writings, probably in part because it was generally abolitionist, but mainly because he saw missionaries as a civilizing force (both on natives and on the colonials).

Darwin was certainly justifiably proud of the contributions his family had made, principally on the Wedgewood side, to the abolitionist cause. E.g. his grandfather Josiah Wedgewood who (or rather whose workers) designed, mass produced and distributed this famous seal of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, of which Wedgewood was a member:

These widely distributed emblems were worn and displayed by abolitionists in both England and America, and turned out to play an important role in popularizing abolitionism and turning it into a mass movement.

Lessee. Also Darwin showed concern for the welfare, and justice concerning, former slaves in Jamaica. We was a member of the Jamaica Committee, organized in 1866, to prosecute Governor Eyre to be tried for his excesses (including the slaughter of innocents, summary executions without trials, etc) in putting down the "Morant Bay rebellion" (1865). Darwin was very energetic in fund raising for this cause. It was an issue that divided British society with many Tories (including much of the clergy) supporting Eyre.

But for the most part Darwin's charitable donations, voluntarism and activism, although considerable, where kept close to home, in Downe on Kent, where he carried out many projects for the poor, and for the benefit of ordinary folk, in cooperation with his close friend, the local Anglican pastor Brodie Innes.

There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings.

Not accurate at all. If anything Darwin was excessively empathetic.

“Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.”

Um, yeah. That -- "nature RED in tooth and claw" -- is from Alfred Lord Tennyson, the poet, and Christian, and was written in 1849, a decade before Darwin's Origin.

You're kinda snide regarding Darwin, but I don't think you have a very accurate appreciation of Darwin the person.

[Delacon]

Totally agree. Why is it wrong to try to figure out how the magician pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Evolution is a miracle. So is gravity. So is matter. So is the universe. So are the minds we have that god miraculously created to observe and try to understand these things.

[xzins]

My assertion is that information theory is as close as math and science can get to answering that question.

You are definitely a blessing, sister. While you might be right about information theory being as close as we can get, I hope we can get closer - even precise about it.