Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Psychology Today dips its toe in the Darwin problem, runs back to Uncle Charlie for comfort …

arroba Email
Evolution News and Views

In “Psychology Today: There’s No Controversy over Evolution and Besides, We Shouldn’t Teach It in Science Classes” (Evolution News & Views, March 19, 2012) Casey Luskin reports,

Though at first blush Henriques’s position might sound fair, there’s hardly anything praiseworthy about it. When a Darwin lobbyist says “Teach the controversy, but only in social studies or political science class,” that’s usually just a polite academic way of saying ‘the only people with fundamental objections to evolution are anti-science religious fanatics, and we must warn students about the sociology underlying these wacky beliefs.’ Yes, Henriques’s article is more respectful than the usual anti-ID material, but its arguments are little better: Despite how Henriques frames his position, the article holds that there is no real scientific controversy over evolution, and we shouldn’t be teaching it. …

The article improves as it goes along, at least temporarily.

Respectfulness isn’t a bad thing in principle; the problem is that respect for the wrong things is mere patronage, and desperately insulting.

The ID guys are calling BS on the cargo of the SS Darwin (garbage scow). It’s long past time all that trash was taken out. No one should need or deserve respect just for saying so.

From an intellectual perspective, it is better when ID theorists and supporters are losing their jobs for saying so than when they are merely referred to the Department of Nice, Useless Thoughts.

It. Is. Not. A. Nice. Thought. It won’t be Useless either, if the ID community has anything to say about it.

From Luskin,

Ultimately, Henriques acknowledges that “the completeness of natural selection for explaining evolution is more debated” and “there currently are a number of different elements that are emerging that are causing biologists to question the completeness of the modern synthesis, with some arguing that major, foundational revisions are in order.”

Uh, yeah. When a person arrives as late to the meeting as Henriques did, it’s amazing that he thinks he should be emitting policy.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

The point of my post is to show how much a person's worldview affects their view of psychology. It determines how you view man, guilt, human nature, cures to psychological problems, etc etc. If you don't understand that man has a spirit and is a spiritual being, you will not be able to effectively address the problems he faces. tjguy
While Fodor strenuously denies it, his position is equivalent to ID. He uses the terminology of materialism, but means something different by it than most. johnnyb
"what does that matter if there are absolutely no psychologists who support ID?" - tjguy Lack of holism, incoherent wrt individual psyche? "Psychology is even less scientific than evolution." - tjguy That's precious, especially from a young-earther! Gregory
And what does that matter if there are absolutely no psychologists who support ID? Do psychologists have a corner on the truth? I'm sure there are plenty of Christian psychologists who do support both ID and even creation science. It is just that they may not be a big name in secular psychology circles - which is no big surprise. Psychology is even less scientific than evolution. It is filled with all kinds of assumptions and interpretations that no one really knows whether they are true or not. Often times it is based on evolutionary premises or an evolutionary worldview. If psychologists don't start with the Word of God and who God created man to be they will end up way out in left field with their theories. Here is a quote from an article on Christian psychology:
Only Christian psychology perceives human nature in a way that is consistent with reality and capable of speaking to our most difficult problems—sin problems. Christian psychology sees men and women as not only physical, but also spiritual; as morally responsible before God; as created in God’s image; and as having rebelliously turned away from their Creator. Only Christianity is prepared to face the problem that necessarily arises out of our sin nature: the existence of guilt. Christian Psychology – Conclusion The Christian view of human nature or what it means to be a human being is complex because it includes such terms as soul, spirit, mind, heart, will, consciousness, and intuition.12 Further, Christians who properly understand human nature might never need to seek professional counseling—they might maintain spiritual well-being by remaining in submission to Christ. Christians either believe God when He says He has dealt with the sin problem through the sacrifice of His Son, or do not. "
http://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-psychology.htm tjguy
Which ID-psychologist would offer an alternative perspective? Iow, who is a tenured or seeking tenure psychologist in USA (or beyond) that openly supports ID? Preferably names in response and not only gestures please. Otherwise what I see is discount criticism of psychology without knowledge of the field by the DI, by ID proponents. As it turns out, I will be speaking against Gregg Henriques' views at an academic conference this weekend (chosen before hearing about UD/Evo News). You have my support against Henriques' so-called evolutionary 'unified theory'! But do tell who have you got in human-social sciences that actually promotes positive-ID? ID as 'real' and properly recognisable in society? To me, graduate of the DI's Summer Program, questions remain. J. Schloss has left the ID camp. Who psychologically remains? Gregory

Leave a Reply