Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

J. Scott Turner in the Chronicle of Higher Education — ID is asking the right questions!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The ‘POINT OF VIEW’ article on p. B20 of the 19Jan07 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education is entitled, “Why Can’t We Discuss Intelligent Design?” The author is J. Scott Turner, Associate Professor of Biology at SUNY’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry. The by-line states, “His latest book, The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges From Life Itself, was published by Harvard University Press this month.” (Go here for the Amazon.com listing.)

Turner’s thesis is that academics should stop trying to silence those who broach the subject of intelligent design, but rather be willing to discuss what Turner feels is “a wrongheaded idea.” His reasoning is straightforward: calling intelligent design “the latest eruption of a longstanding strain of anti-Darwinist thought,” he warns his colleagues: “In our readiness to proscribe intelligent design, we Darwinists are telling the world not only that we are unwilling to ask such questions ourselves, but that we don’t want others to ask them either. No wonder the war on Darwin won’t go away.”

Like many secular thinkers who make a show of being broad-minded and willing to “give the devil his due,” Turner tips his hat in our direction: “Here is where I have to give the proponents of intelligent design their (limited) due. Their intellectual pedigree might be suspect, their thinking might be wrong, but at least they are asking an interesting question: What is the meaning of design of the living world?”

Do I hear the sound of a gauntlet being thrown down?

Comments
"Additionally, I suspect that the periodic injection of novel CSI into existing genomes was necessary to drive innovation." Like a well timed virus.mike1962
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Rewards have already been posted on both ends to anyone who can prove ID or Evolution.DAISHI
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
apollo230 (6):
But until it develops to the point where it actually proposes specific and testable mechanisms by which novel CSI is generated, ID will remain a spur, a call for further research-rather than a full-blown research enterprise in its own right.
ID: But until it develops to the point where it actually proposes specific and testable mechanisms by which novel CSI is generated, NDE will remain a spur, a call for further research-rather than a full-blown research enterprise in its own right.j
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Thanks for the mention Dr Dembski. I invited Dr Turner to participate in the second edition of The ID Files and it seems he is up for it. I would never have found out about this without your link, so thanks again.Jason Rennie
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
This is a great piece of writing and I predict that Dr Turner will get into a lot of trouble for writing it. Some quotes follow. "Aren't universities supposed to be a place for dangerous ideas? You might believe (as I do) that ID is a wrongheaded idea, but it's hard to see how that alone should disqualify it from academic discourse. Even bad ideas can contain kernels of truth, and it is academe's role to find them. If Darwin settled the issue once and for all, why does it keep coming back? Perhaps the fault lies with Darwin's supporters. Rather than debate the strain on its merits, we scramble to the courts or the political ramparts to expel it from our classrooms and our students' minds. The banishment of purpose from evolution is Darwinism's sine qua non, which Darwin himself fought hard to establish, and which his descendants have defended stoutly ever since. It remains an open question how other forms of purposefulness might inform our thinking about evolution. What might purposeful evolution look like? Is design its signature? Can it be reconciled with Darwinism? If so, how? If not, why not?"idnet.com.au
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
"Frankly, ID only makes sense in an evolutionary context. In my opinion, descent with modification best accounts for all the relationships between living things." I think a lot of ID supporters will disagree with you, which is of course fine, as long as no one represents your position as the "official position" of the ID movement.russ
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
RE: #10: I think that a number of Darwinists suspect that design, meaning and purpose are embedded in nature's fabric, JGuy, but they cannot voice their suspicions out loud-if they did they would surely be fried in hogfat! :)apollo230
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
This is the kind of thing that scares the Darwinists: free and open scientific debate about opposing theories in academic circles. It's not enough that the masses overwhelmingly reject unguided evolution, but now we have top scientists bringing the design hypothesis into universities for scientific discussions! Oh, can't you just hear the sky falling ?!!!Mats
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
"... but at least they are asking an interesting question: What is the meaning of design of the living world?” I wonder if he intend to support a teleological question. ... Whence in nature comes "meaning"?JGuy
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Hello, Russ! Frankly, ID only makes sense in an evolutionary context. In my opinion, descent with modification best accounts for all the relationships between living things. Genomes underwent periodic modification, and these changes passed on to descendants through existing reproductive machinery. Special creation appears (generally) unnecessary when genetic change and existing reproductive apparati appear sufficient to drive innovation. Some act of special creation may have been needed to get the first living systems made, however. Additionally, I suspect that the periodic injection of novel CSI into existing genomes was necessary to drive innovation. Such CSI would have probably have required intelligence, or a template derived from intelligence, to "take shape". These periodic injections would have been acts of creation-if not Genesis-style act of special synthesis. Best regards, apollo230apollo230
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Apparently Turner's book is about homeostasis but why would Darwin predict this. It seemed more designed. There is a difference between homeostasis within an organism and within an ecology but each seemed to be designed. One thing that may be testable is the limits of change predicted by both theories. Darwinism does not postulate anything that would restrict change; in fact blind processes should eventually push each organism to excel at finding new ways to reproduce its genes. I maintain that such a predisposition would be harmful to ecologies as various organisms within an ecology blindly develop superior ways to win the gene reproduction game. This is the fundamental prediction of Darwin based on Malthus' ideas of restricted resources. Each organism does not know it must be in some form of equilibrium in the ecology even though in the long run this equilibrium is essential for survival. In the short run an organism according to Darwin's ideas wants to dominate. However, ID would predict that there would be limitations on biological variation within a species in order to foster the equilibrium of the ecology. This seems to be what we find in nature and it would be an hypothesis of ID that there are parts of the genome that limit biological development. For example, age seems to be a variable that is essentially immutable within small ranges. Darwinism would predict a continuing move to older organisms as those who live longer reproduce more. But we do not see changes such as these. ID might postulate that there are mechanism that govern life duration directed from the genome. There are several other attributes that might lead to better reproduction that we do not see changes in such as improvement in the senses, higher intelligence, agility etc. Why do we not see a movement towards these within individual species? The answer might be they were designed limitations and there may be parts of the genome that are candidates for this design. As I look out my window I see an ecology within which according to Darwin there is a struggle for survival. This scenario is repeated a zillion times all over the world but we do not see this struggle for survival producing new ways to dominate in the gene reproducing game. ID would say there are mechanism preventing such changes while Darwin would forbid such mechanism to develop. Turner's homeostasis hypothesis may be a candidate for the further undoing of Darwinism and fertile ground for ID.jerry
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
"But until it develops to the point where it actually proposes specific and testable mechanisms by which novel CSI is generated, ID will remain a spur, a call for further research-rather than a full-blown research enterprise in its own right." But what if God designed and created the complex specified information we observe? If He used an evolutionary process, your goal might be achievable. But don't your ground rules eliminate the possibility of special creation, since the designer's methods may be beyond our ability to research?russ
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
ID's assertion of design may inspire geneticists and molecular biologists to look for (and find) new and unexpected examples of "rhyme and reason" within the genetic mechanism, but once such inspiration triggers research endeavor, old-fashioned science would take over with its testing/reverse-engineering, and it would be these methods that would actually shed light on new and specific discoveries in the venerable tradition of Watson and Crick. ID would only be vulnerable in a debate if we over-inflated its substance. As research inspiration, it would be great. But until it develops to the point where it actually proposes specific and testable mechanisms by which novel CSI is generated, ID will remain a spur, a call for further research-rather than a full-blown research enterprise in its own right. For the foreseeable future, science will have to fall back on the good old scientific method to accomplish the bulk of genetic discovery. Best regards, apollo230apollo230
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
On the other hand, we would be vulnerable in any debate if ID merely asserts design. If ID actually accelerates scientists' understanding of the genetic code's specifics above and beyond what current science can do, then we would have an unassailable position in any discourse with the opposition.apollo230
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Did Turnter actually use the forbidden word "Darwinists" to describe those who believe in naturalistic evolution. It wasn't in the Amazon review. I still think it would be worthwhile for one of the posters to periodically sponsor threads that review books such as this and encourage those who comment to have read the book. We would all learn from what is said.jerry
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
I would be interested in reading where Dr Turner thinks the design comes from and what evidence he has for his ideas.idnet.com.au
January 28, 2007
January
01
Jan
28
28
2007
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
an opportunity not to be missed. These opportunities raise the profile and legitimacy of ID. It is a chance to define and expand the theory/concept and show clearly its scientific basis. Go for it.deric davidson
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
I hear a Darwinist asking for free and open discussion of ID in the universities. Great! We should return the favor and invite Dr. Turner and his fellow Darwinists to Uncommon Descent for a free and unfettered discussion of Darwinism vs. Design. I personally am all for uncensored discussion provided the opposition (and ourselves) are civil, serious and well-mannered. Best regards, apollo230apollo230
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply