Culture Darwinism science education

“Paranoia” hits British Darwinists (well, these days, that’s pretty much what they’ve got, intellectually)

Spread the love

In “British Humanists campaign to restrict academic freedom”( Access Research Network, September 23, 2011), British physicist David Tyler explains,

This week has seen the launch of a new website, with the title: “Teach evolution, not creationism!” registered by the British Humanist Association. The issue relates to education and the way the subject of origins is handled. The organisations in the campaign are the British Humanist Association, the Association for Science Education, the British Science Association, the Campaign for Science & Engineering and Ekklesia. There are 30 individual signatories and most publicity has been given to Sir David Attenborough. The Daily Telegraph’s report said that “The naturalist joined three Nobel laureates, the atheist Richard Dawkins and other leading scientists in calling on the government to tackle the “threat” of creationism.” What they want is “enforceable statutory guidance” that will allow legal sanctions to be taken if any publicly-funded school allows creationism or intelligent design to be presented as science. The only point science teachers would be allowed to make would be to declare these topics out-of-bounds for science students.

Later, they’ll start demanding loyalty oaths to Darwin from teachers and students.

3 Replies to ““Paranoia” hits British Darwinists (well, these days, that’s pretty much what they’ve got, intellectually)

  1. 1
    Blue_Savannah says:

    There are 30 individual signatories and most publicity has been given to Sir David Attenborough.

    They really ARE desperate…wasn’t he the one who embarrassed himself by fawning over “Ida?” 😉

    Darwinists and science are mutually exclusive. Instead of trying to silence dissenting scientific opinions, why don’t they worry about the fact their predictions are constantly being falsified? They remind me of the Wizard of Oz, ‘warning’ the people not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, lest their charade be exposed.

  2. 2
    Alan says:

    ID “science stopping”. LOL.

    The emergence of ID has created a frenzy of research activity, both among ID proponents, and among the Darwinists who wish to disprove it, so is ID “science stopping”?

    How could it be when even research into possible naturalistic explanations can sit comfortably within the ID paradigm. Such research is indeed essential to ID, so that scientists can reach an eventual consensus on the limits of what natural processes can achieve. It’s crazy to suggest that ID is “science stopping”, when the ID paradigm is wide enough to embrace most of the research being carried out within the current naturalistic orthodoxy.

    In contrast, the Darwinists response to ID is to try to shut it down at all costs, and by all means (fair or foul). So you have ID, or the dogmatic “naturalism only” approach.

    The debate was never between ID and naturalism, but between ID and dogmatic naturalism. ID could only be called “science stopping”, in the way that Darwinism is, if ID proponents denied the acceptability of any naturalistic explanations apriori, or if they denied that naturalistic explanations have value within certain spheres. How could this ever happen when natural laws and naturalistic explanations provide an essential foundation on which ID arguments are based?

    ID bases its claims on observations of the limitations of natural process. Inferences to design would be meaningless without a backdrop of events that can (and should) be explained adequately by natural causes. Given that ID doesn’t seek to “refute” or censor natural explanations, but merely looks to classify events into those that can be reasonably explained by natural law, and those that cannot, this competition looks set to continue for a long time WITHIN the ID paradigm. How does this stop science?

    By reintroducing competition to the stale “naturalism only” origins debate, ID has focused the complacent minds of Darwinists directly onto the important questions they should have been addressing decades ago. Ironically, by attempting to uncover the kind of “detailed testable models” that Behe asks for, the Darwinists would be doing research that is essential to ID. Fully naturalistic explanations need to be given a fair shake of the stick, and given the strength of the materialistic philosophical commitments driving most Darwinists, the stick will only stop shaking when they (i.e. the Darwinists) tire of the effort – and they will be doing research that is valuable to ID. ID proponents encourage these research avenues as a positive thing, believing that it will ultimately shed further light on the barriers to fully naturalistic explanations, rather than attempting to censor them, or to enforce a narrow orthodoxy.

    The “science” of creating elaborate just-so stories to explain the diversity of life will only be stopped when naturalists themselves have exausted all reasonable (and many unreasonable) possibilities. ID needs a strong attempt to present the naturalism only side, in order for its conclusions to be sound. ID proponents need ther best naturalistic argumnets to counter. Even then, the door is always open for naturalists to re-enter the contest with new hypotheses. So even the Dogmatic naturalists have a place at the ID table. How can that be science stopping?

    How is ID science stopping again?

  3. 3

Leave a Reply