Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Why is it such a big deal? I always correct my posts if they don't read right or words that are misspelled. Don't you do that? I guess not judging from all the "typos" in your posts (and yes, we all know that your version of Mozilla doesn't have a spellchecker
). But can you honestly state that you never go back and change your posts?Here is an advice to you: Wait 15 minutes before posting a reply. That way there is no chance anyone can go back and edit their posts any more. Don't be such a crybaby.
Whether uni, multi or parrallel, faith makes the uncertain "real".
All participants in perception have faith.
Faith in sin is not recognized as the faith that it is.
But when placed in love, faith is always seen for what it is.
Faith in sin is masked by socially acceptable words such as, for example, "logic", "science", "reality", "nature", "universe", "multi verse", "parallel universe", "time", "space". It's all sin because it is all seriously insane, and taken way too seriously.
Complete abstraction is the natural condition of the mind. But part of it is now unnatural. It does not look on everything as one. It sees instead but fragments of the whole. This is the only way it could invent the partial world(s) you see.
The purpose of all seeing is to show you what you wish to see.
All hearing is only to bring to your mind the sounds it wants to hear.
These are specifics. The mind that has taught itself to think specifically can no longer grasp abstraction in the sense that it is all-encompassing.
For example, one brother is all brothers. Every mind contains all minds, for every mind is one.
Such is the truth.
Yet does such abstract thought make clear the meaning of creation to anyone in this thread?
If these thoughts do not bring perfect clarity with them to you, then you have trained your mind to think in terms of specifics, and place your faith in form.
To those trained in specifics, such thoughts are but empty sounds; pretty , perhaps, correct in sentiment, yet fundamentally not understood nor understandable.
Jesus
Evolution and Dissent
This opinion piece by David K. DeWolf ran in the Boston Globe, June 11, 2007
IT'S THE QUESTION that won't go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?"
As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.
At the New Hampshire debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Arizona Senator John McCain a follow-up question: "Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?" This too is a trick question, because no serious advocate wants to teach "creationism." However, there is increasing skepticism among thoughtful scientists of a central claim of neo-Darwinism, namely that complex living systems can be generated from mindless processes like random mutation and natural selection. Thus, the question that Wolf Blitzer should have asked would be along these lines: "Do you think that the topic of Darwinian evolution should be taught objectively in our public schools, with evidence for and against the theory?"
Some candidates would undoubtedly answer "No," asserting that there "is no debate" over evolution and that teaching "both sides" of a non controversy does a disservice to students.
But we have heard that rhetoric elsewhere. For example, Al Gore has famously said that the debate is over regarding global warming. Even assuming that human beings cause global warming, scientists vigorously debate how significant the human contribution is and how beneficial remedial measures would be. "The debate is over" really means, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
You might think that a public high school is a poor venue for controversies in science. But even in higher education political and ideological agendas are threatening academic freedom. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez, a talented astronomer at Iowa State University, was recently denied tenure. Gonzalez has published 68 scientific papers, more than three times the number normally expected for tenure in his department. His college textbook on astronomy was published by Cambridge University Press. His work has been featured in top scientific journals, including a cover story in Scientific American.
But in 2004 Gonzalez co authored a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," which made the case for attributing the life-sustaining features of our planet to something other than random chance. This was too much for some colleagues at ISU. A petition was circulated by a religious studies professor and signed by 120 colleagues, affirming their rejection of "all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor."
Some may have the illusion that science is devoid of politics. But whether we debate the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug, the risks of electromagnetic radiation, or the potential benefit of embryonic stem cells, financial and ideological agendas are not easily set aside. As bad as political correctness may be in the humanities and social sciences, we should be particularly alarmed by a threat to the right to dissent from the "mainstream" when it comes to scientific knowledge, often a critical component of our public policy.
Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.
At the next presidential debate, I'd like to hear the following question: "Do you think public school students should be permitted to hear both sides of the debate about Darwinian evolution?" American voters want to know their answers.
This opinion piece by David K. DeWolf ran in the Boston Globe, June 11, 2007
IT'S THE QUESTION that won't go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?"
As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.
At the New Hampshire debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Arizona Senator John McCain a follow-up question: "Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?" This too is a trick question, because no serious advocate wants to teach "creationism." However, there is increasing skepticism among thoughtful scientists of a central claim of neo-Darwinism, namely that complex living systems can be generated from mindless processes like random mutation and natural selection. Thus, the question that Wolf Blitzer should have asked would be along these lines: "Do you think that the topic of Darwinian evolution should be taught objectively in our public schools, with evidence for and against the theory?"
Some candidates would undoubtedly answer "No," asserting that there "is no debate" over evolution and that teaching "both sides" of a non controversy does a disservice to students.
But we have heard that rhetoric elsewhere. For example, Al Gore has famously said that the debate is over regarding global warming. Even assuming that human beings cause global warming, scientists vigorously debate how significant the human contribution is and how beneficial remedial measures would be. "The debate is over" really means, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
You might think that a public high school is a poor venue for controversies in science. But even in higher education political and ideological agendas are threatening academic freedom. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez, a talented astronomer at Iowa State University, was recently denied tenure. Gonzalez has published 68 scientific papers, more than three times the number normally expected for tenure in his department. His college textbook on astronomy was published by Cambridge University Press. His work has been featured in top scientific journals, including a cover story in Scientific American.
But in 2004 Gonzalez co authored a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," which made the case for attributing the life-sustaining features of our planet to something other than random chance. This was too much for some colleagues at ISU. A petition was circulated by a religious studies professor and signed by 120 colleagues, affirming their rejection of "all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor."
Some may have the illusion that science is devoid of politics. But whether we debate the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug, the risks of electromagnetic radiation, or the potential benefit of embryonic stem cells, financial and ideological agendas are not easily set aside. As bad as political correctness may be in the humanities and social sciences, we should be particularly alarmed by a threat to the right to dissent from the "mainstream" when it comes to scientific knowledge, often a critical component of our public policy.
Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.
At the next presidential debate, I'd like to hear the following question: "Do you think public school students should be permitted to hear both sides of the debate about Darwinian evolution?" American voters want to know their answers.
Verizon Deniersâ Find a Cellphone
Posted by Michael Egnor on June 15, 2007
Is the brain alone necessary and sufficient to cause the mind? Hereâs a thought experiment:
Imagine scientists living on an isolated island who have developed sophisticated science and culture, with one exception: they deny that telecommunication is possible. For assorted reasons, they deny that the human voice can be transmitted through space, except as vibrations in air. Weâll call this civilization the âVerizon Deniers.â
One day, they find a cell phone (it dropped from a plane or something). They turn it on, and they hear things. They hear hissing, cracking, and what sounds like voices!
The Verizon deniers are amazed! So it's off to the lab, and soon the Verizon denier scientists have the answer. They show that all kinds of things â chemicals, mechanical impacts, electrical interference â can change or ablate the voices. They find that certain sounds the voices make are consistently associated with patterns of activation in the cell phone circuits. They found that some aspects of the voices â tone, amplitude, etc. â are localized within the cell phone. They conclude that the voices are simply an emergent property of the cell phone circuits!
However, one of the scientists, a Verizon accepter, isnât so sure. He says:
âWhat if the cell phone is necessary for all of the noises, but only sufficient for some? What if some of the noises in the phone are actual voices of living people, and are merely transmitted through the phone, but not caused by it?â
The Verizon deniers say: âHow can you prove it?â
So the Verizon accepter goes to work. He studies the properties of all of the noises the phone made. Some of the noises, like the hiss or the cracks, he can explain as an emergent property of the phone â just oscillations from the circuitry transmitted through the speaker to the air.
But the voices are different. The sound of the voices certainly has some properties like those of the circuit â frequency, amplitude, power, etc â but there's more to them. They have meaning. These âvoiceâ noises express anger, love, purpose, judgment â all properties that are not inherent to electrical components.
So the Verizon accepter decides that the voices are not caused entirely by the cell phone. He concludes:
1) The cell phone is necessary for all of the noises
2) The cell phone is sufficient to produce noises that only have properties â like frequency and amplitude â that are shared with the circuitry in the cell phone itself
3) The cell phone is insufficient to fully account for the noises (i.e., the voices) that have meaning, because meaning is not a property of matter. The only thing that can cause meaning is a person.
The Verizon accepter shows that there is a method of determining whether the mind can be caused entirely by matter. If the mind has a property, such as meaning, that is not a property of matter, then matter, while perhaps necessary to the mind, is insufficient to cause it.
Too simple? I propose that any credible theory of the mind must at least provide a basis for discerning that a voice from a cell phone is generated by a person, not the phone. Itâs a kind of inverse Turing test â it tests the theory, not the machine. As I see it, none of the materialistic theories of the mind would provide a clear basis for identifying the voice in a cell phone as a person and not as an emergent property of the phone. If a theory can't get a cell phone right, I don't trust it with the mind.
So, you ask, what was the denouement of the story about the scientists on the island? Well, things went well for the Verizon accepter, until he applied for tenureâ¦
Posted by Michael Egnor on June 15, 2007
Is the brain alone necessary and sufficient to cause the mind? Hereâs a thought experiment:
Imagine scientists living on an isolated island who have developed sophisticated science and culture, with one exception: they deny that telecommunication is possible. For assorted reasons, they deny that the human voice can be transmitted through space, except as vibrations in air. Weâll call this civilization the âVerizon Deniers.â
One day, they find a cell phone (it dropped from a plane or something). They turn it on, and they hear things. They hear hissing, cracking, and what sounds like voices!
The Verizon deniers are amazed! So it's off to the lab, and soon the Verizon denier scientists have the answer. They show that all kinds of things â chemicals, mechanical impacts, electrical interference â can change or ablate the voices. They find that certain sounds the voices make are consistently associated with patterns of activation in the cell phone circuits. They found that some aspects of the voices â tone, amplitude, etc. â are localized within the cell phone. They conclude that the voices are simply an emergent property of the cell phone circuits!
However, one of the scientists, a Verizon accepter, isnât so sure. He says:
âWhat if the cell phone is necessary for all of the noises, but only sufficient for some? What if some of the noises in the phone are actual voices of living people, and are merely transmitted through the phone, but not caused by it?â
The Verizon deniers say: âHow can you prove it?â
So the Verizon accepter goes to work. He studies the properties of all of the noises the phone made. Some of the noises, like the hiss or the cracks, he can explain as an emergent property of the phone â just oscillations from the circuitry transmitted through the speaker to the air.
But the voices are different. The sound of the voices certainly has some properties like those of the circuit â frequency, amplitude, power, etc â but there's more to them. They have meaning. These âvoiceâ noises express anger, love, purpose, judgment â all properties that are not inherent to electrical components.
So the Verizon accepter decides that the voices are not caused entirely by the cell phone. He concludes:
1) The cell phone is necessary for all of the noises
2) The cell phone is sufficient to produce noises that only have properties â like frequency and amplitude â that are shared with the circuitry in the cell phone itself
3) The cell phone is insufficient to fully account for the noises (i.e., the voices) that have meaning, because meaning is not a property of matter. The only thing that can cause meaning is a person.
The Verizon accepter shows that there is a method of determining whether the mind can be caused entirely by matter. If the mind has a property, such as meaning, that is not a property of matter, then matter, while perhaps necessary to the mind, is insufficient to cause it.
Too simple? I propose that any credible theory of the mind must at least provide a basis for discerning that a voice from a cell phone is generated by a person, not the phone. Itâs a kind of inverse Turing test â it tests the theory, not the machine. As I see it, none of the materialistic theories of the mind would provide a clear basis for identifying the voice in a cell phone as a person and not as an emergent property of the phone. If a theory can't get a cell phone right, I don't trust it with the mind.
So, you ask, what was the denouement of the story about the scientists on the island? Well, things went well for the Verizon accepter, until he applied for tenureâ¦
The Nature Editorial: Either Intelligent Design is Science, or Senator Brownback Got it RIght
by Michael Egnor
In a remarkable editorial, the editors of Nature recently responded to Senator Sam Brownbackâs essay What I Think about Evolution in the New York Times. Senator Brownback wrote:
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject itâ¦.
Referring to materialistic evolutionary theories for the emergence of the human mind, Senator Brownback notes:
â¦Aspects of these theories that undermine [the] truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Naturesâ editors took Brownback to task for âcrossing linesâ:
â¦there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defence of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one.
They asserted, with confidence in their science:
Humans evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritageâ¦the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
The editors assert that the emergence of the human mind without intelligent design is an âunassailable factâ. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this claim, aside from the problems with their interpretation of the scientific evidence itself, is the admission by the editors that the question of intelligent design in biology can be adjudicated by the scientific method. If the evidence for or against intelligent design can be evaluated scientificallyâ as the editors at Nature firmly assert that it canâ then intelligent design is a real scientific inference, albeit, according to the Nature editors, a mistaken one. And if they are asserting that intelligent design is mistaken from a non-scientific standpoint, then the editors are advancing an atheistic theology, as Brownback pointed out.
The mainstay of the materialistsâ argument against intelligent design has been that it isnât science. Yet, as the Nature editors inadvertently demonstrate so clearly, the materialistsâ argument against intelligent design is self-refuting; they argue that intelligent design isnât science, and that itâs scientifically wrong. Yet if intelligent design is scientifically wrongâ if it is an 'unassailable fact' that the human mind is the product of evolution, not intelligent designâ then the design inference can be investigated (and, they claim, refuted) using the scientific method. Then intelligent design is science.
Either the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a scientific analysis of the design inference, or the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a non-scientific analysis of the design inference, which would be, as Senator Brownback observed, atheistic theology posing as science.
Either intelligent design is science, or Senator Brownback got it right.
by Michael Egnor
In a remarkable editorial, the editors of Nature recently responded to Senator Sam Brownbackâs essay What I Think about Evolution in the New York Times. Senator Brownback wrote:
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject itâ¦.
Referring to materialistic evolutionary theories for the emergence of the human mind, Senator Brownback notes:
â¦Aspects of these theories that undermine [the] truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Naturesâ editors took Brownback to task for âcrossing linesâ:
â¦there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defence of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one.
They asserted, with confidence in their science:
Humans evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritageâ¦the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
The editors assert that the emergence of the human mind without intelligent design is an âunassailable factâ. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this claim, aside from the problems with their interpretation of the scientific evidence itself, is the admission by the editors that the question of intelligent design in biology can be adjudicated by the scientific method. If the evidence for or against intelligent design can be evaluated scientificallyâ as the editors at Nature firmly assert that it canâ then intelligent design is a real scientific inference, albeit, according to the Nature editors, a mistaken one. And if they are asserting that intelligent design is mistaken from a non-scientific standpoint, then the editors are advancing an atheistic theology, as Brownback pointed out.
The mainstay of the materialistsâ argument against intelligent design has been that it isnât science. Yet, as the Nature editors inadvertently demonstrate so clearly, the materialistsâ argument against intelligent design is self-refuting; they argue that intelligent design isnât science, and that itâs scientifically wrong. Yet if intelligent design is scientifically wrongâ if it is an 'unassailable fact' that the human mind is the product of evolution, not intelligent designâ then the design inference can be investigated (and, they claim, refuted) using the scientific method. Then intelligent design is science.
Either the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a scientific analysis of the design inference, or the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a non-scientific analysis of the design inference, which would be, as Senator Brownback observed, atheistic theology posing as science.
Either intelligent design is science, or Senator Brownback got it right.
Pro-Darwin Biology Professor Laments Academia's "Intolerance" and Supports Teaching Intelligent Design
By Casey Luskin June 22, 2007 3:57 PM
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. 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 issueâ and predicts, âI 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:
Intelligent 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, âWhat, then, is the harm in allowing teachers to deal with the subject as each sees fit?â 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 Turnerâs 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.
Guillermo Dekat, a law student and legal intern with Discovery Institute, helped contribute to this blog post.
By Casey Luskin June 22, 2007 3:57 PM
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. 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 issueâ and predicts, âI 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:
Intelligent 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, âWhat, then, is the harm in allowing teachers to deal with the subject as each sees fit?â 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 Turnerâs 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.
Guillermo Dekat, a law student and legal intern with Discovery Institute, helped contribute to this blog post.