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.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." --Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." --United States Senator James Henry Hammon (I can also say that this sentiment of Ham causing black people to be cursed by God was still spoken of by Christians in the South even in the 1970s because I grew up hearing it. I do not know if it still is spoken of today. It severely retarded the development of basic civil rights for black people. )
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible where slavery is described as an unholy or unrighteous or immoral institution. Paul didn't even tell Philemon that he was unholy or unrighteous or immoral for owning slaves. Jesus Christ himself never spoke a single word about slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 could have been enacted into law by state legislatures during the slave days of the South.
Even more fascinating is that Leviticus 25:44-46 (ESV) clearly articulates that the institution of slavery isn't desirable (so there's some healthy self-awareness going on), but nevertheless, it's okay for it to be practiced for whatever reason:
44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Israelite slaves could leave after 7 years and take their family with them. Oops. No, that's not right.
Exodus 21:5-6 (ESV)Just a guess, but there were probably one or two Dads (okay, most of them) who said they loved their master when they probably wanted to kick him in the groin, just so they could be with their family. Praise God! Praise God!
5But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' 6then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Robert Ingersoll's commentary on this particular prescription was thus: Did any devil ever impose upon a household, upon a father, so cruel and so heartless an alternative? Who can worship such a god? Who can bend the knee to such a monster? Who can pray to such a fiend?
Epictetus, the Greek philosopher who was once a slave, used a version of the Golden Rule to say simply that no one should own a slave because no one would desire to be owned as slave. I missed a similar line of reasoning anywhere in the Bible.
Paul's commentary on the subject was mostly about how to be a good slave so the Roman masters didn't view Christians as bad slave stock, not wanting to upset the apple cart. God was renowned for protecting his faithful, so I never understood why Paul didn't let loose with something that would have made William Lloyd Garrison proud and then let God slay the Romans who came to put a stop to this abolitionist Jesus follower. That would have been an awesome story.
I only have a few points to add.
First, that Israel was in bondage in Egypt for four hundred years before God freed them. Their history as recorded in the Tanakh reveals Truth to us through the indwelling Spirit.
Among these truths, is that bondage is not only a matter of circumstance but also of fear and will. Which is to say, whom or what do we serve?
As He freed Israel from the bonds of Egypt, Christ has set us free from the bonds of sin and death - which supersedes our circumstance in this temporal life.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. - Hebrews 2:14-15
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. – Romans 8:14-15
Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. – Ephesians 6:5-9
There are people who are kind of in the middle, so my thoughts are not wasted on them. They won’t post in threads like these, though.
It’s also useful because most Christians I meet think I’m a Satan worshiper, so this helps to be able to explain the whys of my belief in no deity.
Okay, well in the works of Warner Wolf, "He speaks highly of you."
That would be because I have no interest in what people believe in the privacy of their own hearts.
I care about the manifestations of ID that attempt to subvert science and science teaching. The versions of ID I object to are, in fact, legal entities.
There is plenty in the Bible, back to front, about the true state of man being a free creature inwardly and that the desirable state of a man is to be free among others.
In addition to the 50 year Jubilee, Jesus (the fulfillment of Jubilee) told us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Also, remember, Jesus' clarification: His kingdom is not of this world.
(Also, don't believe rationalizations by slaveholders.)
Variation plus natural selection constitute an algorithm, so the term random does not apply to the system. If you wish to call the system intelligent, so be it. It has, over time, a visible problem solving behavior.
It is, however, not particularly kind or sensitive to the individual living creatures that participate in the dance, so I fail to see any moral lessons to be derived from it. Variation exhibits little or no foresight, other than spreading its bets across the table, so that some of them win.
Which is fine until someone turns around around and irrationally concludes therefore that something - or some One - doesn't exist when they obviously weren't looking for it or Him in the first place. LOL!
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matt 22:37-40
I don't recall your having any particular objections to my suggestion of an elective colloquium either.
If that is right, then why argue?
I argue two issues that I think are related. The first is that ID as currently formulated is unproductive. This isn't just my opinion; it is shared by the Discovery Institute. Their internal writings acknowledge their lack of research and even plans for research.
The word design is a great red herring. The question is not whether living things are designed, but how.
No one in biology, whether atheist or theist, ID advocate or Darwinist, denies the Darwinian process: variations occur, some result in greater reproductive success. As far as I can tell, the only thing at issue is the source of variation.
A great deal is made of the word random, and the question of whether variation is random. This will be answered by research, and not by first principles. Science can tell whether a wheel is biased, and eventually discover the process. In any case, we know that the process mimics randomness to a high degree.
My second issue has to do with an acknowledged anti-science element in the ID movement. This ranges from the rather subtle bias against empiricism, all the way to global flood literalism. The latter is by far the dominant strain of motivation. There are no 27 million dollar museums devoted to unnamed design processes. When the school board members at Dover discussed their motives, they did not mention esoteric debates within the scientific community; they discussed Biblical literalism.
Yes; that was Spenser. But Darwin evidently thought the term most felicitous as a description of his theory, for he said so at the time.
The statement that nature is "bloody in tooth and claw" is, as I recall, a direct quote from Darwin on the occasion of his presentation of his theory to the Linnean Society of London in 1859 (IIRC).
Darwinian evolution theory may have some highly vauable insights; in fact, I believe it does. But as you know, I do have reservations (principally WRT to its insistence on random development, which seems to be a fundamental article of its faith). Also I think it is unfortunate that the theory has been highjacked by any number of social and political progressives, not to mention it is association in the public mind with some kind of a "proof" of the non-existence of God. To my mind, these are its defects.
Plus I resent how Neo-Darwinists today seem to want to just "shut down the debate," and penalize all "apostates." The recent Sternberg debacle at the Smithsonian is a case in point.
Thank you for writing, Coyoteman!
And, yet, those between-the-lines words about the true state of man don't seem to contradict the institution of slavery. Because the whole idea is based on dehumanizing the people who are serving as slaves. All men may have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, but the Bible doesn't support that claim. Maybe John Locke should have written the Bible.
Locke believed these rights made sense because he believed that man was a creature of reason and tolerance by nature. The problem is that the Bible states exactly the opposite-- that man is conceived in inequity, born in original sin, and is a totally worthless and unworthy creature in God's eyes (which is why it's supposed to be so great that he allegedly loves us-- even though he shows his love in odd ways). Locke raises up man. God debases man.
Further, Jesus nor any of his disciples or his apostles spoke out in favor of liberty or sought to make any men free from a state of non-spiritual bondage. Liberty and God are incompatible. Free will isn't truly free will because the consequences of exercising it can be as severe as can be imagined-- eternal torture. I don't recall anything about democracies in the Bible.
In addition to the 50 year Jubilee, Jesus (the fulfillment of Jubilee) told us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
There were people like Epictetus who were near-contemporaries of Jesus and his followers and the writers of the New Testament and they were able to apply the Golden Rule in a more full way than Jesus and his followers.
The problem is that Jesus and his followers weren't the least bit concerned about this life. They were basically a moderate death cult (a group of people who celebrate death over life). Everything was about the afterlife and not this life (in many ways, that's sort of what religion is supposed to be about-- it's not a civic organization). You were supposed to be as holy as you could in this life, but this life was just a tiny detour to the final destination-- physical death and spiritual resurrection into Heaven to be with God forever.
Thank you for posting the details of Darwin’s activities WRT abolition. The phrase “nature red in tooth and claw” was a statement that Darwin made to the Linnean Society of London, on the occasion of the presentation of his theory to that august body in 1859. Perhaps he was just being hyperbolic.
Then you must have missed this: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Thanks for writing, GraniteStateConservative!
There is no indication that Jesus or his followers viewed slaves as "neighbors." No indication whatsoever. In fact, given the many opportunities to address the subject which were presented in the NT, there was no mention of slavery being unethical, immoral, unholy, or unrighteous as an institution. So, there is stronger evidence to suggest that slavery is acceptable than there is that dentistry (a subject which is never brought up in the NT) is acceptable.
Or maybe he was just quoting a recent and famous poem by Tennyson.
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.