Academic freedom for creation explanation

_{David L. Hagen

March 18, 2009

Constitution, Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Expelled, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Reuben Kendall, freshman at UT-Martin, has written a thoughtful view point regarding Evolution vs Intelligent Design. He raises important points on metaphysical presumptions vs data. He raises the question of Academic Freedom which incorporates the foundational unalienable freedoms of speech and religion. May I encourage readers to write editorials and viewpoints raising such issues and standing up for our inalienable rights.
———————————————-
Academic freedom for creation explanation
Reuben Kendall, Issue date: 3/17/09 Section: Viewpoints

As a freshman, I haven’t been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don’t take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections.
But I have learned that if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.

When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, “Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts.” Well, I am not so sure.

Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?
. . .
Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.

Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.

The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn’t academic freedom.
True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.

It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists. . . .

See Full Article

Comments

I've always found this young earth creation study interesting: http://www.icr.org/article/114/ along with a follow up assessment which bolsters the previous material: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm There's also the research paper by the researchers themselves found here for those who like technical details: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Helium-Diffusion-Rates-Support-Accelerated-Nuclear-Decay.pdf Dare I say that there are consistent empirical scientific studies by creation science organizations? I'll admit, I'm hesitant to post something like this on an ID website because the idea that creation science and ID supporters going hand in hand has been quite turbulent (First noticed when I saw the link for the young cosmos blog removed along with the sudden absence of Scordova). It seems that just as many IDers are willing to write off creation science as evolutionists but in this case moreso to avoid being dismissed by the Darwinist lobby. I'm all for academic freedom, and while I have no problem with people differentiating the goals between ID and creation science, it seems to me that "creationism" is actually being alienated from the "free marketplace of ideas" even by IDers regardless of how scientific some creationist ideas and follow-up research are. However this post alone is refreshing in such light mentioned before. For that I give my thanks DLH. You da man!PaulN_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

ID has become the love that dare not speak its name.allanius_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

eligoodwin, Can YOU demonstrate the power of an acumulation of genetic accidents? Ya see all YOU have to do is to actually suppoprt YOUR position with real, not imagined, scientific data/ observations. And until you do so ID will be around.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, The point is to study the design in the hope of being able to answer questions about it. However FIRST one has to determine whether or not design is present. And as you have already been told it is a design INFERENCE- meaning we do NOT start with the answer of design, we infer it via observations and experience.Joseph_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Creationism has produced 0 models and does not have any explanatory power regarding trends we see in biology. Intelligent design/creationism is not a theory–it is an untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be science.
Russell Humphreys made some predictions back in the 1980s and they have been borne out by the evidence...
As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was: Mercury’s decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet’s magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value [measured by the Mariner 10 spacecraft].
linktsmith_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

David and eligoodwin: Again, I am not trying to discuss here the whole ID theory. My point is only that ID does not "begin" with the answer "design", it "arrives" to the answer "design" through a well defined theory. I understand that you don't like and accept that theory, and that's fine for me. I would like to discuss with you the details of our different points of view, but again this thread does not look like the appropriate place. But I am often here at UD, and I will be happy to understand better why David thinks that ID "begins" with its answer, or that FSCI is a "mightily idiosyncratic term", or why eligoodwin seems to ignore all our points, often repeated, about the connection between conscious intelligence and design, and the very explicit differences between creationism and ID, and still rely on the supposed scientific or philosophical "authority" of the Dover trial.gpuccio_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

ID is dressed up creationism and still rests upon an unverifiable premise. Instead of a god being responsible for things we cannot yet explain, an "intelligence" is responsible. Can IDists demonstrate this intelligence they speak of? What is the difference? The Dover trial pointed out the silliness of trying to separate them--an "intelligent design" text (Pandas and People) simply using ctrl+F to replace creationism/creator with intelligent design/intelligence.eligoodwin_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, sorry if I seemed to be evading. I thought we'd come to some understanding on the creationism issue, though I still think it's very bad on every level for ID not to cut loose from those completely. So, as to the issue of whether the answer is provided, I was just thinking out loud, as I tend to do. On that issue we will have to disagree. I do think the answer is assumed. I don't think there's a chance in the world that an IDer would respond to the question -- the way you framed ID --
how did the functionally specified complex information we observe in biological beings originate?
with the answer "by [these specific] natural mechanisms." In fact, I don't think the IDer would or even, in a sense, could answer with anything other than "design." Anything less would be insufficiently ID, and anything more specific would start to sound like creationism. As to what I've read, I've read this blog for a couple of years. Of Dembski, I've rad TDI, ID, and NFL; of Behe, I've read Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution; I've also read Wells's Icons, the textbook Of Pandas and People, most of Philip Johnson's books, the anthology on Darwin Design and Education, and a bunch of essays here and there. The ID classics, as it were. I've also read a fair amount of the "primary literature" in ID, including the Mayer article on taxonomic categories. I think in virtually all that material, the answer begins and ends with "design."David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

David: you are shifting from the point at issue, and asking me a detailed discussion of ID. Why do you do that? Your points were very specific, and I have answered them specifically. Please, don't just evade into new points at each post. Obviously ID shows why the answer "design" is the most reasonable. The answer is in no way "already provided". Have you ever read ID sources? Have you ever read this blog? You can agree with our points or not, but just stating that in ID the answer "design" is already provided is absolutely unfair.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

gpuccio [18],
The question ID is trying to answer is not “how did we get here”. That is indeed a philosophical, or religious, problem. The question in ID is “how did the functionally specified complex information we observe in biological beings originate?”
Your ID question is just "how did we get here" at a greater level of abstraction. Also, it uses FSCI, a particular -- and, I have argued elsewhere, mightily idiosyncratic -- term. Actually, we're both wrong, because ID knows the answer. A better way of putting my version would be
How did we not get here without design?
A better way of asking your question would be
How does the functionally specified complex information we observe in biological beings require design?
As far as I can tell, in ID, the answer "design" is already provided. The point is to show it.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

David: The question ID is trying to answer is not "how did we get here". That is indeed a philosophical, or religious, problem. The question in ID is "how did the functionally specified complex information we observe in biological beings originate?" Now, I am not denying that the age of earth or common descent are relevant to that problem. They are, but only indirectly. And you must understand that beliefe in a young earth is based on some very specific form of faith. I respect faith in any individual, because it is based on factors which I can not judge. But you are right that it must not interfere with a person's job. So, let's say that an YEC believes in ID science and argues against darwinism. We have two possibilities here. If he argues on the basis of his faith, then he is doing creation science. I would respect his position, but I would never agree with him. In that case, his argument could sound like that: "As the earth is 4000 years old, darwinist mechanisms cannot generate biological information". But if he never refers to his private religious faith, and argues that: "even if we accept the usual estimate for the age of earth, darwinian mechanisms cannot generate biological information", them why should we hold his personal faith against him? Are you really arguing that we can never accept a scientist, or any other professional, if we know that he has some conviction which we find bizarre? Well, I can. Indeed, I do that every day. I will confess to you, as we are in a very private context, that I usually find the convictions of many good people "bizarre", at least for me. Indeed, I find the convictions of practically all darwinists (including you) very bizarre, but still I am very happy to discuss with them scientific matters.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

gpuccio [15], I think the age of the earth and common descent are relevant, because they are both related to the question ID keeps answering with "designed!" -- that is, how did we get here? In that respect, your medical analogy is misleading. The situation is more like discovering that your doctor believes in homeopathy, "healing touch," and the healing power of crystals. Even if the doctor doesn't use these things on me, I'm not going to trust him on issues related to the body. I'm going to think he's a quack. And I would be right.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

gpuccio [13], you seem like a good bloke (I'm assuming you're a male). I don't want to use motivations to cast doubt on ID. Frankly, I don't think ID's arguments hold up for a moment on their own terms. I do think the motivations of major figures on both sides are interesting, historically and culturally. That was my reason for raising the conflation of ID and creationism. I would say the same thing about anybody who conflated -- as some do -- a belief in the findings of evolutionary biology and atheism. I would support that kind of equal treatment, though not equal treatment of ID as science, because it hasn't established any scientific legitimacy. As an aside, it would be nice if others didn't keep casting doubt on my motivations, including my religious beliefs, which they really know nothing about.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

David: common descent and earth age are important issues, but they are not relevant to ID proper. I don't understand why you say that "It would be good for ID’s credibility if ID wasn’t just agnostic on such things as the age of the earth but if ID accepted on principle all of these things — including common descent" It is as if you requested from a good medical doctor an act of faith about the age of earth before allowing him to discuss medical issues. Why? Are you a priest, or what? A medical doctor can have a personal faith which brings him to believe in a young eart, and still be a good medical doctor. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that the earcth is billion years old, but a couple of the best ID supporters I know are YEC, and I respect their faith, and above all the fact that their faith does not interfere with their ID reasoning. As for common descent, I accept it as the best explanation at present, but I have some reservations, whose nature is purely scientific, and has nothing to do with my faith: my faith has no problem with the concept of common descent.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

for a science, ID says nothing about a whole lot of things. Neither does Newton's first law. You'll agree that that's a science, right? But Dembski doesn’t believe in common descent, Behe does. What difference doest it make? If life is designed, life is designed regardless of what one things about common descent. If it can’t do that, it should stop citing creationist arguments What specific creationist argument is being cited and who is citing it?tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

David: Indeed, it's very simple. The separation of creationism and ID "is" absolute. There is no doubt about that. Creationism is a way of thinking, and ID is another way. They are not necessarily incompatible, but they are completely different. Creation science is a well defined movement of thought. That's the way it is usually known with. Calling it with its usual name does not mean one agrees that it is science. I don't. But if I had to speak about it, I would still call it "creation science", because that's how they call themselves. I have been posting on this blog for some good time, and I have never, never used a religious argument in an ID discussion. I have sometimes discussed some very general religious issues when the discussion was about religious issues and not about ID, but personally I never discuss faith issues here. I am a religious person, but my faith does not need ID. And I am a scientific person and a scientific ID supporter, but my science does not need my faith. So, as you can see, for me ID and creationism "are" absolutely separate. May be there are others in the ID field, whose positions I certainly respect,who would not support such an absolute separation, but I do. And, like me, most of ID supporters here. I am really surprised that there are still anti ID people who, like you, prefer to cast doubts about ID motivations, rather than address its arguments. But, again, I can respect the positions of all, while not agreeing with them.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

tribune7 [11], for a science, ID says nothing about a whole lot of things. It would be good for ID's credibility if ID wasn't just agnostic on such things as the age of the earth but if ID accepted on principle all of these things -- including common descent. But Dembski doesn't believe in common descent, Kenyon is s young-earther, etc. etc. If it can't do that, it should stop citing creationist arguments -- if, as you say, creationism is faith not science (other ID supporters on this very thread would disagree).David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

David, Creationism is faith. Basically, it says the Bible is authoritative about how the Earth and life came about so how it says the the Earth and life came about are how they came about. Because it is faith, it can't be falsified. ID is science. It says applying methodologies of design detection to life indicates life to be designed. It says nothing about the age of the Earth. It says nothing about common descent. It says nothing about who the designer is. It is science and it can be falsified.tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

gpuccio [4], no doubt Mr. Kendall will soon learn that creationism has nothing in common with ID. Nothing. At least not in public. It is interesting that when UD was more of a William Dembski project, the separation of creationism and ID was absolute. Indeed, "ID is not creationism" might have been seen as a central claim of the movement. More recently, creationist sources are cited willy-nilly alongside ID and regular science sources, DLH [7] refers to "creation science" as though creationism were science, and DLH and bFast defends the falsifiability of both ID and creationism [9]. These are just examples from this thread. Have the posters at UD become comfortable with the idea that ID is a kind of creationism, or is it something else: that ID and creationism are "fellow travelers," to use the old Marxist language, in a common fight, and are allied together against standard evolutionary biology?David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

eligoodwin:
If creationism/ID is not scientifically testable, why should it presented as science in a science classroom?
You are so right! If creationism is not scientifically testable, scientifically falsifiable, it should not be taught in the science classroom. The classic creationist model says that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Unfortunately there is no way of falsifying such a hypothesis. In fact there has been no contrary hypothesis suggested!? Oh yea, there is another hypothesis, that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that the universe is about 16 billion years old, and that the universe started as a pinpoint, expanding, well explosively. I hear there's quite a bit of evidenciary support for these positions. eligoodwin, which is is, creationism can't be tested, or your statement begins with a false premise? It can only be one or the other. About ID, well, ID itself is a meta-theory, encompassing a bunch of sub-theories. The best known of these theories is the theory of irreduceable complexity. Behe has suggested that the bacterial flagellum is one such irreduceably complex system. His theory has been published for some years. So far there have been a few attempts to refute his theory which have been published in the literature. Oops, that's not right. I thought that IC was not scientifically testable. Wrong again. All that the scientific community needs to show is a mutation event by mutation event pattern from a bacteria without a flagellum to a bacteria with a flagellum, experimentally establishing in each case that the bacteria shows advantage. Again, eligoodwin, which is is, ID can't be tested, or your statement begins with a false premise? It can only be one or the other. C'mon eligoodwin, fess up -- can't be tested right? Surely you wouldn't begin with a false premise.bFast_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

eligoodwin seems completely clueless. Give him a break though, general analysis may not be his specialty.Upright BiPed_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

eligoodwin You allegation that "creationism/ID is not scientifically testable" exposes your naivete and ignorance of the literature in both creation science and intelligent design. Start by learning the definition of: Intelligent Design. For creation science, see Institute for Creation Research etc. Then try to understand the basis for forensic science, archeology, cryptology etc. Come back when you understand the scientific principles and presuppositions in those fields etc.DLH_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

eligoodwin, if you cannot understand the difference between creationism and ID why should your posts not be filtered out?tribune7_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

If creationism/ID is not scientifically testable, why should it presented as science in a science classroom?eligoodwin_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg: As a freshman, Mr. Kendall has a right to be spontaneous, and not to care too much regarding superficially politically correct language. It's the substance which counts, and the substance is clear enough in his message. eligoodwin: "Creationism has produced 0 models and does not have any explanatory power regarding trends we see in biology. Intelligent design/creationism is not a theory–it is an untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be science." You are a good example of what Kendall is speaking about. Out of simple politeness, I will not comment on your tone or you "arguments". But, with them, you do confirm our points better than any discussion.gpuccio_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Creationism has produced 0 models and does not have any explanatory power regarding trends we see in biology. Intelligent design/creationism is not a theory--it is an untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be science. IF academic freedom is the issue should astrology (Zodiac) be taught in physics courses as well? Finally, science is self correcting and that is what it makes it powerful.eligoodwin_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

As a freshmen, Mr. Kendall has to learn not to say "creation" when talking about intelligent design.David Kellogg_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

HughJass Please provide constructive comments or desist. Inflammatory foolishness helps no one.DLH_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply