Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Infected with postmodern drivel or instead tired of Darwinian drivel?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This story has been of ongoing interest. Here is the latest.

SSHRC doubts the science of evolution
In rejecting a proposed study, the eminent science council shows it has become infected with postmodern drivel
By Dan Adleman

In the summer issue of Humanist Perspectives, Gary Bauslaugh reports that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has rejected Dr Brian Alters’ application for a grant to study the “detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.”

The rejection, in and of itself, need not set off alarm bells, as the SSHRC rejected 73% of the applications under review at the time. What is extraordinarily disturbing, however, is the council’s stated reason for the refusal to grant funding:

“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design Theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.”

Memorial University’s Larry Felt, one of the panelists who reviewed Dr Alters’ application, told Canwest that while he doesn’t dispute the theory of evolution, there are aspects of the natural world that “evolution has some trouble accounting for.” Felt went on to suggest “the possibility of a synthesis” of evolution and Intelligent Design that “compels scholars to take an open mind,” as opposed to the kind of closed mind frame that feels compelled to “dump on the religious right.”

Now the alarm bells should be wailing. Not only is the SSHRC now presenting Intelligent Design Theory—a pseudoscientific right-wing Trojan Horse designed to combat the teaching of cumulative Natural Selection in science classes—as being on parallel footing with evolution—a rigorously peer-reviewed scientific theory—but it’s also taking the ideological stance that it’s the Canadian government’s duty to protect the religious right from potential exposure to the invidious reality that the biblical account of creation is at odds with all of the evidence.

One has to wonder what kind of backward hicks have hijacked the SSHRC council. It turns out that the story is much more complex and convoluted than that.

All of the panelists are respected Canadian “social scientists;” that is to say, they’re arts professors, most of whom specialize in postmodern theory and know absolutely nothing about science. This sheds a whole new light on their criticism of Alters’ proposal.

Modern day postmodern pedantry has its roots in the genuinely innovative works of thinkers like Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, and Deleuze, who wanted to annihilate traditional notions of truth, morality, power, and the self in order to liberate thinking from the confines of vestigial metaphysical systems.

Ironically, most modern day “postmodernists” (an odd title because the aforementioned progenitors of the movement didn’t want any followers or to have their ideas systematized), tend not to know the first thing about free thought. David Foster Wallace, one of America’s most brilliant essayists, has cogently diagnosed the problem:

“After the pioneers always come the crank turners, the little gray people who take the machines others have built and just turn the crank, and little pellets . . . come out the other end. The crank-turners capitalize for a while on sheer fashion, and they get their plaudits and grants and buy their IRAs and retire to the Hamptons. . . . There are some interesting parallels between postmodern crank-turners and what’s happened since post-structural theory took off here in the US, why there’s such a big backlash against post-structuralism going on now. It’s the crank-turners’ fault. . . . You get some bona-fide artists who come along and really divide by zero and weather some serious shit-storms of shock and ridicule in order to promulgate some really important ideas. Once they triumph, though, and their ideas become legitimate and accepted, the crank-turners and wannabes come running to the machine, and out pour the gray pellets and now the whole thing’s become a hollow form, just another institution of fashion. Take a look at some of the critical-theory PhD dissertations being written now. They’re like de Man and Foucault in the mouth of a dull child. Academia and commercial culture have somehow become these gigantic mechanisms of commodification that drain the weight and color out of even the most radical new advances.”

Innovators like Nietzsche and Derrida challenged and played with received moral, political, and metaphysical doctrines in order to broaden conceptual horizons. Unfortunately, the worst of the crank-turners have turned postmodernism itself into a fundamentalist doctrine. And the first commandment of this newfangled religion is to challenge “regimes of truth” wherever they may lurk. Unfortunately, a number of dogmatists have unreflectively applied this approach to science. The problem is that science already has an infinitely more rigorous screening process in the scientific method. Unlike the claims made in many of the so-called social sciences, scientific hypotheses are subjected to high levels of scrutiny and forced to withstand attacks from every conceivable angle. It’s not because of domineering “regimes of truth” that the SSHRC panelists’ cell phones and laptops work so well, it’s because of the scientific method.

Similarly, unlike Intelligent Design Theory, evolution is the result of meticulous evidence-assimilation and the open invitation to refute the hypothesis that man evolved from an ape-like species a very long time before the Bible tells us that an omnipotent and omniscient God created him out of thin air. And it is an irrefutable fact that we humans, who were long indoctrinated to believe that we were anything but animals, in fact emerged out of the same protoplasmic muck as all the rest of our cousins in the animal kingdom.

In 1996, American physicist Alan Sokal underscored the vapidity of applying postmodern pedantry to scientific endeavors in a little prank he played on Social Text, a prominent postmodern journal. Sokal’s article, which he referred to as a deliberately-contrived hodgepodge of “fashionable nonsense” contained such gems as: “It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific ‘knowledge,’ far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it.”

Predictably, Social Text embraced the hoax text with open arms. Sokal therefore concluded that the journal flagrantly ignored intellectual rigor and “felt comfortable publishing an article on abstract quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.” Sokal wrote, “My goal isn’t to defend science from the barbarian hordes of lit crit (we’ll survive just fine, thank you), but to defend the Left from a trendy segment of itself. There are hundreds of important political and economic issues surrounding science and technology. Sociology of science, at its best, has done much to clarify these issues. But sloppy sociology, like sloppy science, is useless or even counterproductive.”

Moreover, it’s important to note that none of this should lead us to a kind of default scientism, whereby science is granted supremacy over all other disciplines in every sphere of thought. Everything in its proper place. A technocracy wouldn’t necessarily be any better for the world than a corporatocracy (in fact, they’re extremely compatible). Science is a powerful tool. Nothing more. And surprisingly, when it comes to doing and understanding science, nobody does it remotely as well as, well, scientists.

The Left needs to pay careful attention to Wallace’s and Sokal’s admonitions. Real creatives, the kinds of trailblazers who send ripples through our culture, don’t apply cookie-cutter methods to a world that’s becoming exponentially more complex each and every day. They aren’t even arbiters between multiple pre-existing paradigms. Real creatives are conduits for virtual symphonies of ideas. And it is, in part, out of these elaborate new orchestrations that revolutionary paths are forged.

In the meantime, with Alters’ proposal still in limbo, we have to keep the spotlight on the SSHRC’s demagogical dullards, who would have us turn our brains in for mouldy old cookie cutters.

Source: http://www.republic-news.org/archive/148-repub/148_adleman.htm

Comments
Mats and crandaddy: you guys are hilarious!!!rpf_ID
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Blah, blah, blah...Science is God, and Darwin is its prophet...blah, blah, blah... :Pcrandaddy
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers.
Ouch! That must have made Dr Brian's jaw drop all the way to China. How dare they?!!!
Felt went on to suggest “the possibility of a synthesis” of evolution and Intelligent Design that “compels scholars to take an open mind,”
No, not that. We can't have that. It's Darwin Only, and that's it! No open minded needed!
Now the alarm bells should be wailing. Not only is the SSHRC now presenting Intelligent Design Theory—a pseudoscientific right-wing Trojan Horse designed to combat the teaching of cumulative Natural Selection in science classes
Oh no no no no, Dan. Natural selection (non-random death) is a real phenomena, but not able to produce the systems present in nature. Secondly, there is no ID scientist aiming to combat "Natural selection" (which in fact Dan means "evolution")
as being on parallel footing with evolution—a rigorously peer-reviewed scientific theory
Notice how Dan uses "evolution" and "natural selection" interchangeably, as if they had the same meaning.
but it’s also taking the ideological stance that it’s the Canadian government’s duty to protect the religious right from potential exposure to the invidious reality that the biblical account of creation is at odds with all of the evidence.
Notice how Dan paralels ID with Biblical Creationism, and assumes that doubting evolutionism is promoting Creation Science.
One has to wonder what kind of backward hicks have hijacked the SSHRC council.
That's right. We know this because only backward hicks" doubt darwinism.
Unlike the claims made in many of the so-called social sciences, scientific hypotheses are subjected to high levels of scrutiny and forced to withstand attacks from every conceivable angle.
Except evolution.
It’s not because of domineering “regimes of truth” that the SSHRC panelists’ cell phones and laptops work so well, it’s because of the scientific method.
Not only Dan tries to equal ID with Creationism, and not only Dan tries to interchange the meaning of evolution with the notion of natural selection, but now Dan wants us to believe that doubting evolution is doubting ALL the scientific method. No, Dan. Evolution is one thing, the scientific method is another totaly diferent thing. How do I know that Dan assumes that attacking evolutionism is attacking the scientific method? Well, read the next quotation..
Similarly, unlike Intelligent Design Theory, evolution is the result of meticulous evidence-assimilation and the open invitation to refute the hypothesis that man evolved from an ape-like species a very long time before the Bible tells us that an omnipotent and omniscient God created him out of thin air.
Et voila! In essence, Dan is not only wrong in equating DI with Creation Science, but he is assuming that by having doubts regarding the darwiniam myth, we are actually attacking all science!
And it is an irrefutable fact that we humans, who were long indoctrinated to believe that we were anything but animals, in fact emerged out of the same protoplasmic muck as all the rest of our cousins in the animal kingdom.
Yes, it's irrefutable. Actually, I would go a step further and say that such a theory is not subject to falsification. It's not testable. It's not science.
In the meantime, with Alters’ proposal still in limbo, we have to keep the spotlight on the SSHRC’s demagogical dullards
Let me translate that: "In the meantime, with Alters’ proposal still in limbo, we have to keep misrepresenting ID, and protect our sacred cow against attacks, lest people realize how shaky the foundation of evolutionism is."Mats
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Here is partial response to the issue of ID and interest in science: Rising biology enrollments parallel ID’s popularity, Alters is dead wrongscordova
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Dan Adleman is not a happy camper is he? I'm sure the "postmodern crank-turners " really appreciate his insults directed at their intelligence. I guess as he points out they just don't seem to understand that bible thumpers are trying to destroy science and take away our cell phones through the insidious fakery of ID. Who are "arts" professors to deny free money for a hit job on "rightwingers"? What good are they if they don't fund a counterattack on those medieval troglodytes who seek to challenge the all good all knowing all perfect Darwin? (peace be upon Him) How dare they claim:
“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design Theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.”
Who are they to think for themselves? They probably don't even know how to think. This is a call to arms my brothers, the God disease is spreading and infecting it's primitive superstitions onto the halls of academia. The barbarians have smashed through the gates. Comrades we must gather the cadres for the battle is upon our sacred Darwin. (peace be upon Him) When His worship ends, so does civilization.mentok
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design Theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.” Oh really? You mean with a request for a grant to study the “detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s ‘Intelligent Design Theory’" it might not have been an objective study? Not to mention the included straw man in the assumption. Maybe I don't get how these things work. It would seem to me you would study the effects of popularizing ID theory on students, teachers etc. and then, after the study is complete, you could say it is detrimental.EdH
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Real creatives, the kinds of trailblazers who send ripples through our culture, don’t apply cookie-cutter methods to a world that’s becoming exponentially more complex each and every day. They aren’t even arbiters between multiple pre-existing paradigms. Real creatives are conduits for virtual symphonies of ideas. And it is, in part, out of these elaborate new orchestrations that revolutionary paths are forged.
A fine summary of what ID is capable of, and is doing today.antg
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
ou might also want to read my comments at http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/07/darwinism-vs-id-why-social-scienc es.html Or http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3A723F5D and http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/04/chill-out-moment-intelligent-desi gn.html OR http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y465613ED The key issue is that Alters is in no way an objective social scientist in this matter. Most of us here would have no difficulty with a sociological study of the penetration of an idea like ID in Canadian society - indeed, I would very much welcome a study comparing ID proponents and Darwinian evolution proponents for years and tracking the growth and conflict of the ideas. But the sociologist must not need to DEFEND one side or the other (as Alters and the byliner of this article clearly do) because that contaminates the social research data. If Alters gets money (and perhaps he will), no sweat. Just another useless, tendentious study that is part of the problem. Alters could surprise me by breaking the mould, and actually studying the situation instead of merely accumulating evidence for his point ofview, but he would have no reason to do so. Cheers, DenyseO'Leary
October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply