Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UDers, Pandas, and others bring their case before Cornell’s students

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is an exchange between Hannah Maxson (a rising senior with a triple major in the sciences at Cornell) and professor Allen MacNeill along with the various members of Uncommon Descent (UDers), Pandas Thumb (Pandas), ISCID, BSG, IDEA, NCSE, and other Cornell students and alumni.

I applaud MacNeill’s public civility toward his pupil, and I even more applaud what Maxson had to say. The exchange is a window into how the next generation of researchers are reacting to the ID controversy. Her views and that of her fellow students should be informative to everyone. I welcome hearing your reactions! [please try to be civil in your comments toward Allen. He has been respectful and supportive toward Hannah and the embattled IDEA club there. Thus, a little reciprocity is in order, IMHO. If you all wish to bash him, how about another thread, ok (and it won’t be by me)]

Hannah’s Comments

My “confidence level” in intelligent design has been based more on the complete illogicity, irrationality and utter vacuity of most of the criticisms of ID that I hear than from any sort of reliance on Behe or Dembski’s work. In a way, I rely on you people to help me see the flaws in intelligent design theory– and I agree with Allen that critics can be your best friends. But if the critics do such a poor job coming up with any argument of interest, you begin to wonder if the theory being attacked is stronger than you thought.

Back when I was a sophomore I remember Michael Behe coming to Cornell, by invitation of the Biology Department and ACH. He gave a careful and fully scientific presentation, followed by an extensive Q&A or “public discussion” in which large contingent of the Cornell biology department participated. I hadn’t studied much about ID yet then, and knew nothing about the debate. What I remember most from that evening is that he gave a reasoned, scientific presentation and an even-toned response to all his critics, and they –many of whom had lost their cool before the evening was half over– had primarily arguments from emotion. Maybe only arguments from emotion; as far as a remember, no sound logical or scientific critique was presented that night.

Comments

Allen,

Thank you for your visit here, I respect your courage in visiting the "opponents" camp...

If I may say what my agenda is, and I think can speak for many IDEA members. It pains me to see people like Hannah being publicly demeaned. Independent of whether ID can be incorproated into empirical science, it is important to me that she and others like her not be publicly demeaned for interest in it, or for having skepticism of prevailing evolutionary theories.

As I indicated in a published exchage between I and Eugenie Scott, I am not averse to ID being taught outside of science courses : My correspondence with Eugenie Scott on ID in the universities. I am not active in lobbying ID be infused into science courses. And I personally am not active in the public school issues.

I am however deeply concerned for the treatment and matriculation of gifted ID-sympathetic students through our universities. They may be in far larger numbers than many people realize. Raising their prestige on the college campuses and in the eyes of academia is my aim.

Even if most evolutionary biologists might conclude issues of an ultimate intelligence are superflous to the field, I would hope that no matter how crazy they think IDers may be, that IDers might be able participate in helping them solve problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps enemies are being made of people who might otherwise be faithful allies.

Thank you again for visiting.

Salvador

scordova
July 17, 2006
July
07
Jul
17
17
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Not only that, but (horror of horrors!), Hannah and I have become good friends who respect each other and our mutual search for understanding. We disagree, that is very clear, but I believe that out of that disagreement can come a deeper understanding of where and how and why we disagree, and (if we are lucky) more effective ways of clarifying our own beliefs and understanding, and therefore more effective means of investigating them and communicating them to others. And it's a lot more fun than attacking people with pointless and self-defeating ad hominem arguments...at least I think it is.Allen_MacNeill
July 17, 2006
July
07
Jul
17
17
2006
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
One can witness the kind of bullying and intimidation the otherside is willing to dish out on this thread as it now continues toward 92 posts. Were it not for the internet and quickly available resources, students like Maxson would have been in isolation and at the mercy of swarms of anti-IDers. But those days are over! See: Darwinism Myth of Victories Past. Class materials challenging ID can be successfully challenged by resources freely available on the internet and by interested parties willing to help the information flow. One can see the anti-ID side taunting, baiting, demeaning this very polite and highly inteligent young college junior. Amazing how much the other side is enraged to see this student's inquiry into ID. In contrast, the anti-ID side is losing it's cool and being rather rude. The thread is flooded with PvM-spam and Matzke practically interrogating Maxon rather than an appealing to her. Maxon is showing a lot of poise. I think our fears that Maxson was being thrown to the lion's den have been much allayed. Salvadorscordova
July 16, 2006
July
07
Jul
16
16
2006
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
I just hope that Cornel is as gracious to Hannah Maxson when it is time for her graduation as they are now. In the current climate I can see them suggesting that if they haven't been able to convince her of NDE, that she is not ready to be graduated.bFast
July 14, 2006
July
07
Jul
14
14
2006
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Dave- as far as PVM et al and the continued assertion that ID is "unscientific", I often wonder if these folks have any background in the philosophy of science. They act as though the demarcation problem doesn't exist, or is totally irrelevant, which is rather unfrotunate. Have any of these guys have read Bradley Monton's paper on the Dover decision?LowenheimSkolem
July 14, 2006
July
07
Jul
14
14
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT

Allen MacNeill could get in a litte hot water for praising Cronell's IDEA founder, and I salute him!

Hannah:
On the contrary, I both admire and appreciate you very much, not the least because of your passionate search for clarity on these issues and your defense of logical argument as the means for accomplishing it. As I have said many times, I have far greater respect for an opponent of my views who defends them with logic and with vigor, than for a supporter of my views who sits idly by and does nothing at all.

As my fencing master, Adam Adrian Crown, has said, a true fencer (from the word for “defense”, of course) is “gracious and dignified in defeat, magnanimous and humble in victory.” What we seek is to “…improve our society by promoting the “All for one and one for all” spirit…that emphasizes respect, cooperation, honesty, fairness and personal responsibility.”

Allen MacNeill to Hannah Maxon

Recall what was said of MacNeill by one of the Pandas

Pandas Thumb Reaction

I'll calm down when either MacNeill admits ID vs evolutionary theory isn't any more of a scientific debate than astrology vs astronomy or the president of Cornell fires his ass.

I wish Allen the best, and I salute him for standing on his principles.

Sal
PS
I'll be gone most of the weekend. I'm sorry I'll be away from all the fun here.

scordova
July 14, 2006
July
07
Jul
14
14
2006
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
No, that can't be right. ID is, as Pim Van Mucilage repeats ad nauseum, scientifically vacuous. Behe's presentation could not therefore have been scientific. The poor girl is mistaken.DaveScot
July 14, 2006
July
07
Jul
14
14
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT