“An insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin”

_{Salvador Cordova

February 3, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Crocker was about to establish a small beachhead for an insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin…

This is a sizzler! Read more here:

I met the reporter Shankar Vedantam a couple months ago in connection with what was happening in the universities. I’m so glad he covered this story!

Crocker spent most of her career in private industry before recently teaching in universities. She received her PhD under the guidance of Derek Burke, who discovered interferon. To hear a little bit about her, please right click and “save target” the following link to get an audio of her describing her background at an IDEA meeting, September 2005:

Caroline Crocker Autobiographical Sketch

Salvador

Comments

I appreciate your comments, Jerry. I also read a lot and am aware of the theodicy issue and the many attempts which have been made to resolve the intuitive conflict between evil and a creator. I guess my earlier comments, which stemmed from the posted article in which Richard Dawkins expressed his personal view that the horrible cruelties of the natural world are incompatible with a benevolent creator, were not so much about EVIL as they were about indifferent nature and the accidents of birth. Slightly different emphasis, but in the same general area. Anyway, maybe I am completely incorrect in my assumption that the main support for ID comes from people who are religiously or spiritually motivated. It certainly feels that way, and I have read all of the works of William Dembski, Johnson, Behe, etc. I don't mean this as a criticism, by the way. If someone is motivated by spiritual insight to do something which is scientifically true, that is to me all the more powerful. Everyone is so defensive about this. Why? Is it some sort of intellectual sin to do one's work based on one's convictions? Has science so won the day that it is the god we shallt have no other gods but? Hmmm...tinabrewer_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

There are any number of "ape antecedents" that could have given rise ultimately to man. As a matter of fact the genus Homo may have appeared from more than one ancestor. One of the virtues of the PEH is that it places very few restraints on possible origins. But let their be no question. That we had animal ancestors is not to be questioned at least by this investigator. Those that insist otherwise are just as mistaken as those who insist we were an accident. Reproductive continuity will not be violated except possibly at the very beginning and even that is without any tangible justification.John Davison_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Tinabrewer, Two comments - First, I believed in Darwinian evolution into my 50's not because I understood the issue but it just seemed reasonable to me and I never read anything about it except what was in the popular press. Then I went to a conference where Dembski, Behe and some others were speakers and was blown away by the science presented (my background is science). It had nothing to do with religion and in fact it irks me when either side brings up religion in relation to this topic. If tomorrow science produced two or three very complete fossil transitions, I would probably change my view on Darwinism. My religious beliefs in no way depend on the success or failure of Darwinism and I suspect there is a lot more like me. Second, when evil in this world is brought up as an explanation to why someone does not believe in God this is called the theodicy issue (an attempt to reconcile the co-existence of evil and a benevolent God.) It probably should not be the focus of discussion here since this forum is supposedly about science. It is a very legitimate issue in some other venue and is one of the most studied issues in theology with a whole spectrum of interpretations. Just let it go that it is not an issue for science so when either side brings it up it means they have probably failed at the science side of the argument and want to persuade others on the basis of a philosophical argument. Based on what I have read, and it is a lot, there is no good scientific evidence for Darwinism outside of micro evolution. There he deserves his due. Every time I ask for a good example, all I get is equivocation or some very specious arguments or vague reasoning.Jerry_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

red reader, you could not have me more wrongly pegged when you call me a reactionary. I ardently support the aims of the ID movement, and am religious to my core. What I said was that what MOTIVATES the ID movement is a religious or spiritual impulse. That is not the same as saying that the motivation forms the entirety of the movement! I completely understand the necessity of paring down the claims of design to what can be strictly applicable scientifically. Ironically, I am all in favor of the fact that the majority of people who claim to support ID are motivated by at least some rudimentary sense that there is more to life than the movements of molecules. I would like to quote Gandhi once more in these pages "My faith runs so much faster than my reason that I can challenge the world and say 'God is, was and ever shall be'" Now how is it that feeling in that way, I could possibly be accused of being a reactionary materialist simply for asserting that religion fails to answer many of the questions which caused it to weaken so dramatically in the face of the challenges of science? To Scott: I was referring to more than just the cruelties of nature, but also the many gross inequalities in the lives that humans lead, and the general lack of a good explanation for the sometimes inconcievable suffering some humans experience. I will read your link with interest though. thankstinabrewer_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

What was apparent in the article was the eagerness of the students! What was also apparent was their determination to enter the field of biology, knowing the hostile environment they faced. I was moved by the account of the student who wanted to be a vet. What is amazing is the amount of ID leaning we see in students coming from public school systems that don't even teach ID! Various informal polls of some classes indicate ID leaning students in freshman biology classes consitute 17% to 33% of the class. There are unfortunately little numbers on college seniors, but nevertheless, I believe more and more students will be emboldened to enter the field of biology as it becomes more culturally acceptable to be an IDist, and fashionable to denigrate Darwin. IDists might even hold close to a majority someday in biology if the trend continues. One reason that ID leaning students will be emboldened to enter and remain in the biolgoical sciences is that because of the internet and high-speed communications, it is harder to make students feel isolated for their dissent from Darwin. They can readily find support and resources. They will not be intimidated or ridiculed by their peers as easily as they had been in decades past. What a glorious thought, maybe one day 25% of college bio grads will be ID leaning, and it would be triumph by Providence if that number exceeds 50%!scordova_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

tinabrewer wrote: "the anti-ID people seem to have a more honest grasp on the fact that the motivating force behing the ID movement is by and large a religious one." Were we reading the same article? "Crocker said she came to her views on evolution not because of her religious faith but while working on a PhD in biology, when she learned about the complexity of the cell and the immune system." tinbrewer, with all due respect, your comments are thoughtless reactionary spin. Granted, Crocker was able to see the *implicatons* of the design she saw in biology: "When I asked her what she made of the extraordinary genetic relatedness of living things, Crocker said she saw it as consistent with the hand of a creator, who uses the same palette of DNA to build protozoa, pandas and people." Seeing implications in science is the opposite of your assertion that ID is *motivated* by religion. Turnabout is fair: I believe your reactionary spin is based on your anti-religious beliefs which are in fact just religious.Red Reader_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

"I think he was talking about the current ideas on the evolution of whales." Ah, in that case, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Miller's "evidence" of viable transitions. I'm still waiting to see something that could possilby be construed as a legitimate ape antecedant. http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 Tina, There is a cogent explanation for the cruelty we see in nature and human behavior (and it's important to note that once one makes assertions about the nature and purposes of the designer, they have crossed over the line of science and into the realm of theology). My personal belief (not a tenet of ID because ID only detects specified complex information in living systems) is that we live in a "fallen" world which has been subject to the ravages of sin and decay. And that the "designer" is going to redeem this fallen creation, at some point in the future. I'll leave it at that, as we try to avoid straying too far into theological/philosophical issues here. :-)Scott_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

"How can a man who believes we are nothing more than molecules in motion, also believe that we should create a world thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comapassionate? Compassionate? What is compassion to moving molecules? Afterall, there is no good and bad in a purely molecular world. This seems like an utter confusion to me. Can someone help me with this?" Yes, I too would like to hear someone try to explain that. They can go on and on about how they think purposeless evolution gave us a sense of morality and compassion, but last time I checked, going out of your way to help someone that can't help you back is generally not considered an act that will benefit one's own survival. The philosophy behind Darwinism is blantantly obvious; it proposes a world of selfishness, greed and power at any cost. It divides people into classes of intellect and physical ability, shunning those that are deficient in those areas. When was the last time anyone heard of a eugenicist who was against Darwinian philosophy? None, because their principles are one and the same.jasonng_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

I agree with avocationist that this article focuses on religious reasons for supporting ID. Wherever the article gives scientific reasons for supporting ID, it just as quickly debunks them. Furthermore, the article shows that religious reasons for criticising a neo-Darwinian view of man and nature aren't necessarily valid. I'm surprised that this article was linked.dj_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

What is compassion to moving molecules? After all, there is no good and bad in a purely molecular world. To a strict materialist like Dawkins, compassion is an "emergent property". That means that it doesn't exist on the molecular level. It's like how you can't say that a single atom is a solid or a liquid or a gas...those words only make sense if you're talking about a large number of atoms grouped together. Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II and other humanist despots A "humanist" is a person who bases his moral values on what he honestly thinks is best for humanity. (As opposed to basing his moral values on his honest perception of what God wants.) Stalin and Mao weren't humanists any more than Hitler was a Christian. The only humanist on your list is Marx. My feeling is that he was badly confused about human nature but he certainly wasn't a despot.chaosengineer_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

tinabrewer, I offered an answer here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/724#comments What are your other impressions of the article, especially the reactions of the students? Salvadorscordova_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

windbag or not, it is clear from his comments that somewhere deep in his soul he is deeply confused about how the world could be filled with such apparent cruelty and yet be the product of a benevolent creator. if that question doesn't at least disturb a so-called religious person, then that person has less justification for their worldview than does the atheist. All serious persons must concern themselves with answering these basic realities. I sense that many atheists of Dawkins' ilk became so because of an initial genuine impulse to find a worldview which takes all things into account. Having failed to find reasonable answers in the worldview of religion, they look elsewhere. when all avenues are up, they may reject faith in anything beyond matter as a sort of desperate act of rebellion against the cruelty of their experience. As sad as this is, it doesn't make the initial questioning any less compelling, and to my way of thinking, such questions still reveal the many ways in which orthodox religion is bereft of real answers.tinabrewer_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Sorry to bring up Dawkins whose ideas are so tired, but I do find this statement consistent with his bizarre view of reality "It is human agency, human rationality and human law that can create a world more compassionate than natureÃ¢â‚¬Â¦" How can a man who believes we are nothing more than molecules in motion, also believe that we should create a world that's comapassionate? Compassionate? What is compassion to moving molecules? Afterall, there is no good and bad in a purely molecular world. This seems like an utter confusion to me. Can someone help me with this? You also have to wonder how he fits Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II and other humanist despots into his theory that Ã¢â‚¬Å“It is human rationality and human law that can create a world more compassionateÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â. These humanists took more lives in one century than were taken in the history of the world. This man says he cares about truth. He seems too deluded to spot any truth whatsoever. This will hopefully be my last post on that old windbag. Thanks, Saxesaxe17_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

two interesting things really came through for me when reading this article: one is the fact that the anti-ID people seem to have a more honest grasp on the fact that the motivating force behing the ID movement is by and large a religious one. The second thing which was starkly clear was the almost touching way in which Dawkins' abhorrence of the violence and suffering in nature clearly motivate his own atheism... what is glaringly obvious from this is the fact that by and large religion has completely failed to give satisfactory answers to these 19th century questions. The convulsions which society experienced back then as a result of the failure of religious faith to contend with the basic realities of life will simply be re-experienced should the attempt at getting ID accepted eventually succeed.tinabrewer_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Scott I think he was talking about the current ideas on the evolution of whales. Here is an article that may provide some more information http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/.ftrp11_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Weikart's point I have a problem with. Ã¢â‚¬Å“If humans descended from animals, Weikart argued, no one could assert that humans ought to behave in qualitatively different ways from animals." I am not sure what acting like an animal would entail exactly. If he is implying that there would be no reason for moral behavior that is just silly. Immoral behavior gets you ostracized, slapped in the face or worse. Whether morality's origin is divine or natural is irrelevant to this point. The fact is that human society cannot exist without morality. We all have good reasons to act morally regardless of the answer to the creation question. I also don't care for blaming the horrifying results of Darwinism being culturally perverted on Evolutionary Theory. All sorts of ideas have been perverted over the course of history. Blaming Darwin for the Nazis or Eugenics is like blaming Mohammed for our current troubles or Christ for the Crusades. Those horrible ideas were products of their time and there were plenty of other philosophies and schools of thought that allowed the Nazis their sleep at night.ftrp11_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

From the article: "By 1994, observed Brown University biologist Ken Miller, scientists unearthed fossils of animals near the Indian subcontinent that had front and hind limbs capable of walking on land and flippering through water." Huh? Specific examples please? Also: "Reduced to the Darwinian arithmetic of natural selection, emotions are neither good nor bad but merely appendages, such as wings or hands, selfishly designed by genes for their own survival. The distant tugs of genes may give rise to altruism, love and compassion, not just to selfishness and hatred, but that means human assertions about good and evil are just that, notions that humans impose on an indifferent universe, instead of absolute law. It would be as if human beings invented God, rather than the other way around." "If humans descended from animals, Weikart argued, no one could assert that humans ought to behave in qualitatively different ways from animals. And whatever Dawkins may say about humans choosing to turn their back on survival-of-the-fittest mentality, Weikart said, evolutionary ideas make the opposite more likely. "Eugenics would have had a difficult time getting off the ground without Darwinism," he said." Compelling points there. Scott_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

All in all, the writer did a terrible job. He concludes that ID is about religion, and ignores the overwhelming evidence of evolution because they're worried about the religious implications. That is all he took away from ID. While I readily believe Darwin was a compasionate man and would not have liked to see slaves mistreated, I have read quotes which indicate he expected the superior races to eliminate the inferior ones in about a hundred years. This article does throw some doubt on whether he was really an atheist. But he also was quite interested in abiogenesis.avocationist_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Yes! I love the bold non-conformists like Miss Crocker. Great read. Thanks!Scott_{February 3, 2006
February
02
Feb
3
03
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply