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.
I can't vouch for the followers. Perhaps they were just slow on the uptake.
But Jesus was (and is, now and forever) the "neighbor" of every human soul equally. In His love for each individual human person, all men are reconciled one with another, for love of Him. Christianity has only two laws: Love God with your whole heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; and your neighbor as yourself. Christ is simultaneously God and neighbor: What you do "to the least of these, you do it to Me."
Plus Jesus did not discriminate among the people with whom He associated. In fact, He was criticized by some of his followers for hanging out with "publicans" and loose women.... He came to save each and every human person, regardless of station in life; His judgment will come later.
I imagine Jesus would have considered slavery as evidence of the corrupt and fallen state of man, whom He came to redeem by the blood price he paid with His death on the Cross. He paid the price for each and every human soul that it might be freed from the slavery of sin and be reborn so to have life more abundantly, eternally. He came for slave just as much as freeman. In His eyes, all human beings are equally the children of His Father....
And so I don't think you'll find much evidence that the New Testament condones slavery (as you have supposed WRT the OT). In fact, such a supposition is antithetical to the core meaning of the New Dispensation inaugurated by the Incarnation of Christ, which is human liberation. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the New Testament.
My two cents, FWIW. Thank you for writing, GSC!
Did I say there was anything "wrong" with these phrases? To me they are simply descriptive.
That would be my expectation too, js1138. But you know how public speakers love to throw in allusions to poetry. I gather Darwin quoted the poet in his introductory remarks, probably for attention-grabbing effect.
So your pos at 590
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855193/posts?page=590#590
Was not sarcastic?
I imagine the poet wrote it for the same reason.
Most poetry is tendentious and as such is intended to further societal evolution as it was at the time the poetry was composed. If the poem matches your political orientation use it; otherwise write your own.
Tennyson became Poet Laureate within a year of “red in tooth and claw.”
The position is generally regarded as an indicator that one is politically correct and technically polished.
Not generally open to radicals and innovators.
I thought that the Darwinist position is that our cognitive equipment was not designed at all. You don't believe it was, do you?
Cordially,
Why does everything have to be either one way or another with you js1138?
FWIW I generally avoid sarcasm. It doesn't suit me at all.
I strongly agree that the scientists at the Discovery Institute need to conduct specific investigations – both to evidence and to falsify – the Intelligent Design hypothesis. As it sits, it is more a “truism” – it needs some meat on its bones.
Also, it seems to me that the mathematicians there need to make a U-turn because irreducible complexity is a backwards looking model and therefore is likely to be received as a “just so” story – the common complaint about all models in the historical sciences (archeology, anthropology, Egyptology, evolution.)
New complex system theories are not needed, IMHO – self-organizing complexity, cellular automata, functional complexity (to name but a few) are all well established. I aver the mathematicians at the Discover Institute should be focusing on these forward looking mathematical models which should help them identify the “guides” necessary for the observed order to rise out of chaos in this physical system.
Nevertheless, a person’s beliefs should not ipso facto disqualify him from being heard in the town square. If a Young Earth Creationist– or a scientist or mathematician from the Discovery Institute is to sit down and be quiet because of his theological or philosophical or ideological beliefs, then so must every atheist.
The town square, the board room and the court room – where the decisions that concern you most are made - have their own protocols and objectives. Where the greater weight is given to the wishes of the constituents, your hopes have been dashed. And where the greater weight is given to legal precedence (so far) – your hopes have prevailed.
In neither case, though, are the decisions made on the basis of science or math alone – and that may be maddening to some, particularly those whose “observer problem” is that “all that there is” is “matter in all its motions.”
I look for more litigation based on new legal theories and, in the end, I suspect it’ll end up in the Supreme Court. But I also wonder if it’ll be a moot point, if there will be such an exodus from publicly funded schools over the gay activism that our publicly funded K-12 system will be transformed to a voucher system so even low income parents can choose what their kids will and will not be taught.
Certainly I do. Design is not in dispute. Just the process.
Which is why all the mathematical mumbo-jumbo is beside the point.
Thank you for all of your excellent insights!
Totally tendentious = totally politically correct = hipper than most. Also literary technique must match the era, which then was production oriented, totally polished. Poet Laureate is open to only the most innovative and radical, riding the crest of the power curve (another mass production allusion).
Ironic, then.
The debate is hardly being shut down. If ID contains anything of scientific merit, it needs to show its cards. There has never been a point in any science where the assertion that we don’t know everything could be mistaken for actual research.
Here is the question to ask, if you want to know whether an idea is productive: does it foster curiosity about how things work? Does it suggest to young people that there are interesting carers in research?
If ID is going to be taken seriously, it needs a Sister Souljah moment. It needs to disassociate itself from creation science and from the Ken Hams of the world.
Indeed. Fair's fair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc., etc.
Thanks so much for your reasonable and thoughtful post, Alamo-Girl!
Then what was the point of his story about the man on the road to Jericho, in response to the lawyer's question, "who is my neighbor"?
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.
This is an argument from silence. That the first Christians were not about to overthrow the Roman Empire with its attendent forms of slavery and so did not explicitly in writing advocate abolishing slavery as an institution does not mean that they approved of it. For them it was just a fact of life that was not about to change any time soon.
In the context of that era, look at the amazing way that Paul entreated Philemon to except Philemon's runaway slave, Onesimus, back as a BROTHER. Not just as a neighbor; as a brother!
Paul's Plea for Onesimus
8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[a] who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.
22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.
25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Footnotes:
- Philemon 1:10 Onesimus means useful.
Cordially,
Yeah, I can go with irony. There actually are ironies involved, when what starts out as bona fide science ends up being a popular "religion substitute" that utterly denies God.
They can talk all they want. It's when they pretend their claims have some basis in *physical science*in the absence of *physical evidence* that people rightfully object.
There's no objection to discussing these ideas in philosophy classes, theology classes etc. I know you wish to break down the boundaries between physics, theology and philosophy, but considering how many useful things the physical sciences have brought us I think it's a mistake to roll things back to the 12th century.
Let me get this straight. We are not talking about books or magazines or websites. We are talking about what gets taught in science classes. Are you suggesting that because physics says the rate of radioactive decay is constant, and that this leads to conclusions that the Genesis story is not literal history, that physics classes must include alternative scenarios?
Are you suggesting that because astronomy says the earth moves, and this contradicts Biblical literalism, that science classes must include alternative astronomy?
I know you dont like it, but the whole business of science is dispensing with demiurges, and replacing them with regular phenomena. There is no case in the history of science in which researchers have given up and declared we were wrong; arrows really do need angles pushing them along in flight.
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.