19 Replies to “30% of community college professors consider ID science

  1. 1
    thechristiancynic says:

    I honestly don’t know that this is a great statistic to be throwing about; many people will just take this as another example of how community college professors are not nearly as intelligent as their counterparts in four-year institutions. It is interesting to consider, though, since I would imagine professors in “lower” institutions like community or junior colleges have less pressure to conform to the orthodoxy of their discipline.

  2. 2
    Patrick says:

    I wonder what percentage actually bothered to read the literature and comprehended it.

  3. 3
    mike1962 says:

    Patrick: “I wonder what percentage actually bothered to read the literature and comprehended it.”

    I wonder what percentage of anti-ID professors, journalists and jurists have actually bothered to read the literature and understand it.

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    I honestly don’t know that this is a great statistic to be throwing about;

    I report the facts, whether discouraging or encouraging. The truthfulness of ID is independent of the level opinion by professors…

    These statistics tell the story of where ID might have a chance of making an entry at the college level. Usually courses have to appear at the 4 year institutions first before appearing in a community college, but who knows. I am game for seeing innovative approaches to teaching it…

    I think John Angus Campbell’s approach in University of Memphis is an excellent way to intoduce the topic. It would work well in a community college.

    Sal

  5. 5
    hooligans says:

    I recently had a run in with a pro-ID professor at a local community college. I teach middle school science and take courses to keep my certificate up to date. Having in interest in biology and geology, I signed up for a course on the geologic history of our planet. The professor, was a YEC and also supported ID. Numerous students were outraged at the unfounded claims he made and complained to the dean of instruction. Having sat through his class, I was not impressed. He had little understanding of ID, and even a worse understanding of evoluitonary biology. So yes, people will stand up and say that some college professors are just not up to snuff, because they are not.

  6. 6
    Patrick says:

    Good point. I myself actually know people who claim to support ID but really don’t understand it (or they have it confused with creationism). Kinda depressing.

  7. 7
    paulm says:

    Sal,

    You should know better. It is irrelevant how many professors or non-professors support ID. The only questions of relevance are, is it falsifiable and has it been falsified?

    I do not see much evidence on this site or any other pro-ID site of the tests that empirically confirm ID. Please inform me of these tests.

    On the other hand, MET is well tested and has not been falsified.

  8. 8
    thechristiancynic says:

    Sal,

    I didn’t quite mean to say that we shouldn’t talk about it, just that it doesn’t look like any kind of evidence in support of ID making headway. In fact, your post is a little further evidence of the double-edged sword this presents: anti-IDers can say, “Some kind of ‘scientific’ theory that has to gain momentum through less reputable institutions and professors with less education!”, while pro-IDers can say, “Well, if the materialist gestapo in the tenure committees of four-year institution wouldn’t threaten professors who espouse views that are sympathetic to ID, this wouldn’t have to happen!” I’m sure this is news to no one, but I wanted to make the observation.

  9. 9
    paulm says:

    “I report the facts, whether discouraging or encouraging. The truthfulness of ID is independent of the level opinion by professors.
    These statistics tell the story of where ID might have a chance of making an entry at the college level. Usually courses have to appear at the 4 year institutions first before appearing in a community college, but who knows. I am game for seeing innovative approaches to teaching it…” Sal
    Until ID has a research program, it will have no place at the college level. In fact, ID should not have a place in the science curriculum as science until someone is doing ID science. Do you know of a single college researcher who is doing scientific tests of ID? If so give some examples.
    I think that you folks have no scientific research and you know it.
    “…would imagine professors in “lower” institutions like community or junior colleges have less pressure to conform to the orthodoxy of their discipline.” Christian cynic.
    Yes, I agree. At Harvard, a professor would be required to show that ID is based on scientific tests, before teaching it as science. At lesser institutions, “the breathtaking inanity” (Judge Jones words) can be paraded about as if it had substance. Yes, it is awful how all those Orthodox Darwinists demand scientific testing!

  10. 10
    Patrick says:

    A brief summary of some ID research by our own johnnyb:

    [Scientific research]takes money and institutional support. Most people don’t have the money to go out and build a multimillion dollar lab they can run themselves. The DI has been funding a little research, and the CRS and ICR have been funding Creationist research, but other than that there isn’t much money.

    But it is amazing what has been done with so little. The following are the research projects in ID that I am aware of (Creationists that are mentioned are mentioned in their work that applies to both ID and Creationism)

    Jeffrey Schwartz has been researching the mind/brain problem, which is fundamental to ID.

    Douglas Axe has been researching issues in large-scale amino acid changes in proteins.

    Dembski has been researching mathematical methods of design detection and

    Behe, Snoke, Minnich, and Meyer have been researching irreducible complexity.

    Lonnig and Wood have both done research on plant transposons and front-loaded evolution. Lonnig even published a peer-reviewed book called “Dynamical Genetics” about genetics as dynamical systems.

    Remine has been working on the cost of natural selection.

    John Davison has been publishing on his prescribed evolutionary hypothesis.

    Jonathan Wells has been working on showing how design principles can better explain the mechanism of living systems than historic principles.

    Cavanaugh is working on empirical methods for non-evolutionary taxonomy.

    Paul Nelson has been working on ontogenic depth, though I am mostly unaware of this research.

    I also am aware of some people doing research on symbiogenesis as a primary driver of novelty of form, but am not totally sure who is working on it and whether they would want me to speak their names.

    For my own teeny tiny part I am looking into the behavior of genes as following design principles for computer software design, specifically with regards to metaprogramming. I’m planning on attempting to publish this eventually, but am looking for a biologist to partner with, especially as I have no knowledge into the inner-workings of the biology research and publishing industry.

    I also imagine there are a number of people doing research who (a) believe that their research supports Intelligent Design or Creationism, but (b) can’t say so publicly because of risk to jobs. I often get that feeling when reading biology papers. For example, I know of one Creationist who published their Young-Earth Creationism research in a secular geology journal, but just didn’t make the tie-in to YEC specific (what’s amusing is that the paper was actually rejected by a Creationist journal first :] ).

  11. 11
    thechristiancynic says:

    paulm, I’m pretty sure that you’ve deliberately overlooked the point of my statement: It’s not that the Darwinian orthodoxy has a proper place in scientific inquiry (it’s been argued repeatedly on this blog that science would be perfectly fine without it) but that the methods of Darwinists in maintaining the orthodoxy in academic circles (note that I’m not making a statement about the perceptions of the general public) in fact limit scientific inquiry and academic freedom. That’s the pro-ID side. Again, the anti-ID side can easily make arguments to the contrary, which is why I call it a double-edged sword, but let’s not be unfair to this regard. ID has had peer review and experimentation but of course not to the degree Darwinian theory has.

  12. 12
    paulm says:

    “I also imagine there are a number of people doing research who (a) believe that their research supports Intelligent Design or Creationism, but (b) can’t say so publicly because of risk to jobs.” johnnyb

    Claiming that research not explicitly based in ID hypotheses supports ID is an old ID trick. If it is that this is the case then they ought to be able to do research based in explicit ID hypotheses that support ID. ID is valid science only if the hypotheses are ID based.

    You gave me too much information and not enough. It would be easier to site specific research papers or articles. Further, there are two elements to ID. The first is the attempt to falsify that variations in the genome are not random with reference to fitness. The second is to show that intelligence is behind those variations. I am not really interested in the former. I would like a single paper or article that tests the latter.

    I have noticed that getting IDists to be specific about their tests is like pulling teeth.

    Just one paper will do. The one that you think makes the clearest case for ID. And as I said, I want to see something that is positive about ID as opposed to being negative about MET.

    “…but that the methods of Darwinists in maintaining the orthodoxy in academic circles (note that I’m not making a statement about the perceptions of the general public) in fact limit scientific inquiry and academic freedom.” Thechristiancynic.

    I am skeptical of claims that ID research is not allowed at Universities. What I see happening is that Universities are not allowing an untested proposed theory be taught before research is done.

    “ID has had peer review and experimentation but of course not to the degree Darwinian theory has” thechristiancynic.

    I interpret you as saying that ID is not well tested and that MET is well tested. Congradulations! Since MET is well tested and has not been falsified you have just validated MET.

    Just a note. A theory in science well tested. There is no such thing as a theory that is not well tested. ID is not well tested and therefore is not a theory. I am not convinced that it is even a proposed theory.

  13. 13
    paulm says:

    I saic, “Further, there are two elements to ID. The first is the attempt to falsify that variations in the genome are not random with reference to fitness.” Obviously I meant to say, “The first is to attempt to falsify that variations in the genome are random with reference to fitness.”

  14. 14
    Atom says:

    Since MET is well tested and has not been falsified you have just validated MET.

    Oh my, what bluster! A lot has happened since I went to sleep last night…RM+NS was demonstrated to produce new cell and tissue types (not to mention organs and body plans), the fossil record lost its pattern of sudden appearance/stasis/extinction and now there are clearly identifiable phylogonies for organisms, not to mention that these phylogonies are filled with gradual intergradations between organisms, NDE pathways have been shown for not only the flagellum but all molecular machines, and some magician of logic finally was able to show that Haldane’s Dilemma only applies in “math” not in the real world. : )

  15. 15
    Atom says:

    Oh, and Darwinists finally mapped out the entire fitness landscape, so we can suudenly predict paths of adaptation! We actually have a theory we can use now!

  16. 16
    paulm says:

    “Oh my, what bluster! A lot has happened since I went to sleep last night…RM+NS was demonstrated to produce new cell and tissue types (not to mention organs and body plans), the fossil record lost its pattern of sudden appearance/stasis/extinction and now there are clearly identifiable phylogonies for organisms, not to mention that these phylogonies are filled with gradual intergradations between organisms, NDE pathways have been shown for not only the flagellum but all molecular machines, and some magician of logic finally was able to show that Haldane’s Dilemma only applies in “math” not in the real world.” Atom

    The inability of a theory to explain some things does not mean that the theory is not well tested. (The gap between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is not explained. Would anyone really claim that the two theories are not well tested?) All well tested means is that the theory has produced many tests and MET has done this. And none of the tests falsify the theory. Unless of course the scientists doing the tests are intellectually incompetent or liars.

    And I am not all that interested in defending MET. I just want to know why it is so hard to get IDists to clearly inform the public of what scientific tests they do that would justify teaching ID as a theory.

    As I stated, ID must be well tested to be called a theory. I do not see that it as well tested.

  17. 17
    Patrick says:

    I’d be curious to know what level of “genuine scientific research” was being conducted by followers of Darwin in the years shortly after he published his book. And the short list I posted wasn’t good enough as a starting point?

    Behe suggested some tests but I take it he couldn’t afford to do it himself (plus he thinks prior tests have been good enough as references) and Darwinists have claimed they wouldn’t “waste their time” carrying out those tests either.

    As for falsifying, I’ve had some Darwinists claim that every conceivable indirect Darwinian pathway would have to be tested first before it was falsified to their satisfaction…

  18. 18
    Atom says:

    The inability of a theory to explain some things does not mean that the theory is not well tested.

    True, but these are not little side issues that haven’t ben explained yet…these are things (predictions and needed demonstrations) that are at the core of NDE. For example, without a demonstration of RM+NS producing novel cell/tissue/organ/body plan types, we cannot trust in it as an explanation for those phenomena. Without a mapping of the fitness terrain, we cannot quantitatively test NDE. It is like Berlinski said (to paraphrase): Darwinists will claim it is too difficult (if not impossible) to produce such a detailed map, but too bad. That’s what theoris do…they take reams of data and compress them down into simple rules.

    No such thing exists for NDE. So yeah, it is bluster to say it is “well tested” when the necessary demonstrations of its truth have never been produced. I guess the check is still in the mail. (“One day NDE will account for these things…”)

  19. 19

Leave a Reply