Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UK Guardian: Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists

Salvador Cordova
February 25, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

ID is not the same as Creationism, however, it would be naive to say the following article has no bearing on the future of ID.

I’m personally disappointed to hear some creationist students mingling religious ideas into their scientific views, but on the whole, this report can’t be happy news for Richard Dawkins. :=)

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. …. Many …were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.

Comments
dear scordova You're welcome. I'm a bit busy right now but I will think about the best resources and try to post something. i am aware of the VSL work of the people you mention (Barrow, Magueijo), but much of it (they would themselves acknowledge) is speculative, and Setterfield takes things several steps further---beyond what I (and I suspect any other physicist) would describe as reasonable. Progress in physics is certainly about doubting the existing consensus, we agree on that. But the doubts of the people you mention are extremely unlikely to be intended as support for setterfield.physicist
February 27, 2006
February
02
Feb
27
27
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
physicist, If you do have weblinks of an educational nature, by all means feel free to post them here on this weblog. I'm appreciative of you taking the time to try to educate readers of our weblog. If I may point out, 3 professors from my university (a secular university) are displeased with the Big Bang theory, including Menas Kafatos, the head of our Center for Earth and Space Observation who is a PhD physicist from MIT. These dissenters are, as far as I know, not creationists. Were it not for dissent from secular quarters over the Big Bang (www.comsmologystatement.org) and dissent over the immutability of the speed of Light (Davies, Magueijo, Barrow, etc.), I might not have gotten interested in Setterfield's hypothesis, which is certainly not mainstream. I am certainly fine with the Big Bang and Old Earth theory, if that's the way it happened. It strikes me as a well-reasoned theory, and one beloved by many IDists and old-Earth creationists. But there are aspects of the theory that strike me as quite serious problems. Even my former professor, James Trefil, who endorses the Big Bang has been open about it's theretical challenges. I would be interested in your specific comments. This is significant enough that if you'd be willing, I would welcome your specific comments at ARN. If not, you may simply list the resources you would recommend here at uncommon descent. Thank you again for your comments. Salvadorscordova
February 27, 2006
February
02
Feb
27
27
2006
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT

This post has little to do with the topic, except I am from the UK, but I can't find a better way to get these questions in front of the ID community.

I have been reading about ID and its opponents for several weeks now and I have come up with a couple of questions which I have not seen posed or answered (there were three but one got sort of covered last week).

1. What is being designed? (e.g. an individual organism, a species, a biological system, or the processes which generate this type of thing?) Another way to put this - if some aspect of life is designed then where does the designer give up and say "I have designed this much - the way it plays out in detail is up to chance". Or do we suppose the designer planned every detail?

2. When given a proposed instance of CSI how do you determine the specification? (e.g. in the case of blood clotting is the specification a system using this combination of proteins to stop bleeding in case of injury, any mechanism that leads to blood clotting, any mechanism that prevents bleeding in case of injury, any mechanism that performs the functions of blood and is resistant to injury). Obviously the broader the specification the more routes there are to meeting that specification and the more difficult it becomes to make any estimate of the probability. On the other hand the narrower the specification the more it looks like drawing the target round the arrow after it was shot.

I have some more detail on this at http://mark_frank.blogspot.com/ should anyone be interested.

Cheers

I answered here. Mark Frank
February 27, 2006
February
02
Feb
27
27
2006
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
www.setterfield.org I've looked through this and please do not assume this is reliable physics---it is not. As Valerie points out above people looking only for *confirmation* of their current views are not doing science, and this seems precisely what's going on on the setterfield page. There are many better resources for finding out about cosmological physics, and I would be happy to point people in the right directions....physicist
February 27, 2006
February
02
Feb
27
27
2006
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Wow, it's been quite a while since I have opined on this blog. Well, I'm back! Nonetheless, I can't believe that Henry Morris, eminent creationist, has passed away. Thanks to him, the creationist movement wouldn't be the way it is today. Unfortunately, creationism, in a way, has left a bad stain on christianity. It leaves it with the mirror- image of irrationality, ignorance and just plain old stupidity. The result has been legal court cases over school policies and a new front in the day-to-day culture wars. Of course, I don't judge christians based on their views of Genesis 1. However, denying major portions of science in lue of pseudo-science is quite lamentable. Christianity doesn't need to be flexed in order to understand one certain interpretation. Instead, it needs to build and make sure that it's asking the right questions. At any rate, science completely supports the christian position, however, it comes at the price of a billion years.Benjii
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Dr. Luke Randall Brithish- immunologist- Creationist Long live Henry Morris!Joseph
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
My sincere condolences and sympathies to Henry Morris' family and anybody touched by his passing.Charlie
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Because their have been minor rifts between creationists and IDists, regarding the document from the PCA above, I offer this encouragement to people of faith from them:
The present day intelligent design movement would appear to be a good example of how the church in the broader evangelical context can be effective in this manner. .... In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ's Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know.
PS Mats, I was not aware of Henry's passing. My condolences to his family.scordova
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Dr Henry Morris died yesterday.Mats
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT

johnnyb wrote:

The big issue, however, is whether or not historical information can even be determined without the aid of history books. Ultimately, the problem with circumstantial evidence is exactly that — it is only circumstantial. Any interpretation of it only makes sense with the proper framework, which cannot be deduced from itself.

and Markus wrote:

Sal, a hypothesis is a testable conjecture. What, precisely, is your testable conjecture?

Regarding a "science alone" approach to making a forensic inference about the past I will provide links to my ideas. They are the ideas I subscribe to and not necessarily those of the others at Uncommon Descent (especially Bill Dembski). If anyone would like to pursue the ideas in detail, I can suggest the ARN discussion board as an appropriate place to pursue it.

For a specific "science alone" view of origins from an ID perspective, the most radical creation-sympathetic view is Walter ReMine's:
Biotic Message

Bill Dembski mentioned communication theory. ReMine (an electrical engineer schooled in communication theory) takes communication theory first principles and builds an origins theory.

Regarding the exact historical details, Walter Brown (PhD, MIT), puts together a "science alone" approach in several of his works, and then compares the independently derived scientific theory with historical events. His work can be found at:
Creation Science.

Regarding the issue of age of the universe, I should point out a first rate YEC cosmology is available at:
www.setterfield.org. This gets into serious issues of quantum electro dynamics, zero-point energies, and historical measurements of the speed of light.

For the record, there may have been a decay in the speed of light. I invite readers to compare Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson's measurements throughout his life!. I invite the readers to look at The Atomic Constants, Light and Time.

I encourage healthy skepticism be taken pertaining to the above weblinks. My view at this time is the ideas of these gentleman are extremely viable from an empirical and theoretical standpoint alone and are worthy of serious scientific study.

I should also point out, that Loma Linda University (a real research outfit and school) where Timothy Standish teaches (Timothy will be featured in Darwin's Nemesis: Phil Johnson), is an institution that by-and-large adopt the approach I suggest. Many of them lean toward Young Earth, but are quite comfortable using the language of Old-Earth Darwinism when doing scientific research. Their scientific excellence earned them the cover of the peer-reviewed journal Geology, February 2004

My view is that human testimony is notoriously unreliable. Scientific evidence however has a way of affirming who is telling the truth.

Salvador

scordova
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT

Valerie,

Thank you for you comment. My view about objectivity is summarized here:

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."

— Stephen Jay Gould

Regarding my personal views, which I nearly rejected 5 years ago, I came around to find them more compelling after I was willing to part with them. I was raised an Catholic and an old-earth Darwinist, but that changed after high school and became a creationist. In 2000, I was willing to part with my creationist views. Where I am today is that I see the scientific evidence and theoretical considerations are completely incompatible with Darwinism and some unguided Origin-of-Life (OOL).

I am reluctant to say that anyone's interpretation of Christian Scriputres should be taken as absolute truth in regards to historical events pertaining to origins and the great flood. Dave Heddle makes a good case the church fathers may not have been in unanimous agreement over those issues either, and my denomination (same as Dave Snoke and D. James Kennedy), the PCA is reluctant to take a postion. Their non-position is stated at this ID website :
Report of the Creation Studies Commitee (PCA). It is similar to mine.

Bill Dembski gives his views about creationism here:
Bill Dembski's Reply to Henry Morris

Salvador

scordova
February 26, 2006
February
02
Feb
26
26
2006
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
"Change it to “confirmation or disconfirmation” and you are talking about science. Otherwise you are describing the work of a scientific propagandist." Change "Bible studies" to "atheistic beliefs" and you're describing the work of millions of Darwinian scientists.jasonng
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
scordova wrote: "The “science alone” approach does not preclude them from carrying personal beliefs, but it permits them to practice science with integrity." Yes, if they can truly set aside their personal beliefs when practicing science. The danger arises when their area of study intersects with their personal beliefs. Then they must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, to coin a phrase :-), even if it contradicts a closely-held belief and upsets their fellow believers. Folks who are unwilling to rock the boat are best advised to pick a different profession, as they will not be able to practice science honestly. jacktone wrote: "Not being a research scientist myself, I should think it would be somewhat exhilarating to be looking for independent confirmation of the things that I believe from my Bible studies." Change it to "confirmation or disconfirmation" and you are talking about science. Otherwise you are describing the work of a scientific propagandist.valerie
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Salvador -- The big issue, however, is whether or not historical information can even be determined without the aid of history books. Ultimately, the problem with circumstantial evidence is exactly that -- it is only circumstantial. Any interpretation of it only makes sense with the proper framework, which cannot be deduced from itself. As for _experimental_ qualities, you are quite correct. If experimentally-determinable statements are checked, they should be true independent of whether we are reading the Bible or not. But historical statements are of another kind altogether. History is not repeatable, and we have only circumstantial evidence to it. While there can be evidence for and against certain positions, _observables_ take precedent over any circumstantial evidence. And what is history except a collection of observables? Therefore, it is science that should bend to observation, not observations to theories. The only question is which historical documents are deemed reliable or not. That is not a question which is scientifically determinable, but it must nonetheless be determined. Therefore, I do not see how trusting Biblical sources is any less scientific than trusting any other historical source. The only difference is the degree of agreement among colleagues. However, since this agreement or non-agreement is not scientifically based, it is not a scientific argument. To say that historical documentation should not be used in science is the same as saying that observation shouldn't be used in science. There will always be the question of the trustworthiness of sources (and that has also shown to be the case even when reading Nature or Science), but trusting or not trusting a source of historical witness is a question of trust, not of science.johnnyb
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Sal, a hypothesis is a testable conjecture. What, precisely, is your testable conjecture?Marckus
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT

Thank you jacktone. Indeed, the situation I find frequently in the IDEA chapters is that we have students of science with a religious up bringing.

They're religious views are deeply challenged in science class by sometimes overbearing professors. They would like to hold on to their personal beliefs, and are deeply looking for something in nature which might independently affirm the truthfulness of their personal theology. After all, what good is a body of beliefs if it has no chance of being true?

I've been rather astonished at the number of bio students telling me something to the effect, "The complexity of biology is overwhelming. How could anyone deny that it was designed? I can't see how my professors can claim a Mind wasn't behind life."

Here is a wonderful essay by Bill Dembski on the Discovery Institute website:

The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence

It follows that the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to ground all other sciences, is communication theory, and not, as is widely supposed an atomistic, reductionist, and mechanistic science of particles or other mindless entities, which then need to be built up to ever greater orders of complexity by equally mindless principles of association, known typically as natural laws. Communication theory's object of study is not particles, but the information that passes between entities. Information in turn is just another name for logos. This is an information-rich universe. The problem with mechanistic science is that it has no resources for recognizing and understanding information. Communication theory is only now coming into its own. A crucial development along the way has been the complexity-specification criterion. Indeed, specified complexity is precisely what's needed to recognize information.

Information--the information that God speaks to create the world, the information that continually proceeds from God in sustaining the world and acting in it, and the information that passes between God's creatures--this is the bridge that connects transcendence and immanence. All of this information is mediated through the divine Logos, who is before all things and by whom all things consist (Colossians 1:17). The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth--that God acts in the world by dispersing information--also has scientific content.

Consequently, theologians sometimes speak of two books, the Book of Nature, which is God's self-revelation in creation, and the Book of Scripture, which is God's self-revelation in redemption.

scordova
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
Not being a research scientist myself, I should think it would be somewhat exhilarating to be looking for independent confirmation of the things that I believe from my Bible studies.jacktone
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT

I think you have a very valid point johnnyb. There is a possibility the news reports mischaracterized the situation.

Let me say, as a card-carrying creationist, it is my view that the best way the creation hypothesis has for succeeding as a scientific enterprise is to remove theology from it, and allow nature to speak for itself. If the creation hypothesis is true, the scientific method will self-correct to eventually affirm it. It should not, in the end, need creeds of faith to support it, it should eventually become self evident.

Creationists must have faith that nature was architected to allow science to see her accurately. If the current scientific views are at variance with one's theology, one must remember scientific views are provisional, not professions of ones faith.

I think Phil Johnson said it well when he spoke to various people of faith:

the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion

This statement might be alarming to the traditional creationists, but there is for them the admonition by Paul in Romans 1:20 that Nature was architected to give an independent witness to Design apart from the Bible. I think Johnson is inviting others to explore this possibility!

We can not appreciate the truthfulness of Paul's assertion if personal theology is mingled in with every step of the scientific method. I point that out to many of the creationists in our IDEA chapter, that they have a small loophole to try the "science alone" approach to origins vs. the "scripture alone" approach with which many of them may have been brought up. Romans 1:20 invites the student of science to see if nature, with no reference to the Bible, will speak of her origins and design.

The "science alone" approach does not preclude them from carrying personal beliefs, but it permits them to practice science with integrity.

Salvador

scordova
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
"I’m personally disappointed to hear some creationist students mingling religious ideas into their scientific views" I have two responses to this: 1) I don't view this as so much of a problem for reasons explained on my website 2) Being that as it may, I'm not entirely sure that this is indeed happening. The article states: "Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact" Since they did not provide any specifics, I am highly skeptical of this claim. Perhaps they are simply referring to concepts compatible with their religious beliefs (intelligent origin of life, separate ancestry of some creatures, etc.), and it is being dismissed and scoffed at simply as "quote sayings from the Bible" even if it is based on scientific fact. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a scientific argument was mischaracterized as an argument from Biblical authority by dogmatic Darwinists.johnnyb
February 25, 2006
February
02
Feb
25
25
2006
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply