Brayton vs. Moran
by KrauzeMore on Larry Moran, the biochemistry professor who wants universities to "flunk the IDiots". He was criticized by Ed Brayton, and now has a post up, at the same claiming that he was just kidding and that he wasn't:
Ed Brayton's opening attack on me refers to my tongue in check suggestion that students who reject evolution should be flunked, or not admitted to university in the first place. Anyone with a brain can recognize the humor and sarcasm in such a remark. The fact that it sets the Intelligent Design Creationists all atwitter is part of the fun.
However, behind the humor is a serious point. If students entering university have already made up their minds that evolution should be rejected, then that's a serious problem. It's not a question of ignorance. Those students have made an active decision to choose superstition over science. Given a choice of students to admit into university science programs, I would choose the ones who show some understanding of science over those who reject one the fundamental facts of biology. Wouldn't Ed?
But wait until he really brings on the crazy:
People like Ed Brayton think it's okay for Theistic Evolutionists to nibble at science and undermine its principles in subtle ways. He probably thinks it's okay because at least they aren't taking big bites. Well, Ed, I'm here to tell you that it's not all right. The little nibbles are just as bad, perhaps worse, and if you defend even a little bit of sloppy science then you are still defending sloppy science and you should be ashamed.
I told you that some ID critics weren't content with attacking ID supporters: Now theistic evolutionists are starting to be pegged as the new "enemies of science". Brayton responds to Moran's accusations, writing:
On what college application does it have a questionaire that includes the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" None, of course. Nor should there be any such questions. Admission to college is based upon a number of measures of achievement, not a set of ideological litmus tests that they must pass. The only possible way to even determine who does and doesn't believe in evolution would be enormously dangerous.
Do you really want to give the power of deciding who does and doesn't get into college, or who gets to teach at college, based upon what beliefs they will attest to? With the influence of the religious right and constant pressure the right likes to bring on college professors and students with liberal beliefs, do we really want that? Not on your life. And I sure as hell wouldn't want that decision made on the basis of the things I believed when I was 17 or 18 years old. What Moran is supporting is the same sort of ideological authoritarianism that we both condemn harshly when it's displayed by the right; we do ourselves no favors by replicating them.
The truly ridiculous part of Dr. Moran's suggestion is how superfluous it is. If intelligent design really did make students more stupid, this would be reflected by their test scores. Ideological litmus tests like that suggested by Moran are completely unnecessary, as incompetent students would fail on their own.
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Why the arbitrary stop point? We know, for example, that the New Atheists think science has also ruled out the virgin birth of Jesus. Is Moran suggesting that university science programs should exclude Christians because they refuse to learn some basic reproductive biology?
Comment by MikeGene — November 22, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Larry Moran:
Dr. Moran, what about students, like myself, who "have made up their minds that evolution should be" challenged. There is nothing that has been established in the annals of scientific evidence that I would challenge. Yet I would challenge that RM+NS, with all of its variety including phenomenon such as horizontal gene transfer, is not adequate to explain the variety of life that exists.
It is my understanding that science has no established theory to explain first life, that science has no established theory to explain any of the genes that exist in the most primitive life-forms, that science cannot say with confidence how the first eukaryotes got here, that there are a whole lot of scientific questions about what actually happened in the cambrian explosion, that a clear answer to Behe's challenge of the bacterial flagellum has not been delivered. Shall I go on? I am still looking for an answer to how the HAR1F gene took on 18 mutations between chimp and man when the dear thing resisted all but three mutations between the chicken and the chimp. I would like to know how ORFan genes come about. Oh, and then there's the mystery of the Big Bang, of course. It seems that the best explanation for the Big Bang is that it was the creative event of an intelligent designer (how do you spell God).
I, sir, am quite prepared to accept the evidence that science has uncovered — all of it. I am not, however, prepared to accept the conjecture that RM+NS (in all of its variants) is adequate to explain it. I, therefore, am an IDer. Do you fail me, or refuse me admission, because I am determined to think critically, rather than swollowing your religious perspective hook line and sinker? If so, then you are not a scientist at all, you are merely a religious zealot.
Comment by bFast — November 22, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:48 am
Looks to me that Moran has revealed a serious case of paranoia. If he's so unsure of his 'science' that what non-scientists believe is a dire threat to it, his insecurity most certainly won't save it from demise.
But if his religious test for higher education were to be instituted by college admissions boards at any state college/university, their endowment will be in big trouble in no time. What was the name of that professor awhile back who tried to make belief-in Neodarwinism a requisite for passing the course? How well did that go over with the regents?
Comment by Joy — November 23, 2006 @ 11:48 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
It IS reflected in the test scores.
Challenging evolution is the work of scientists, Mike — creationists just don't have the chops to do it. As Bernstein noted, Einstein had to understand Newton inside and out before seeing the flaws in the Newtonian models. Anyone who rejects the science a priori for religious or any other reasons is unqualified to criticize the science.
Let someone who can do the work have the slot at the school.
Comment by edarrell — November 23, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Challenging evolution is the work of scientists, Mike "” creationists just don't have the chops to do it.
What data supports the position that a belief in divinely guided evolution is in conflict with science?
Comment by Bradford — November 23, 2006 @ 11:23 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I don't know, Bradford, what relevance your question has to what I said. Certainly I didn't say that belief in a divine conflicts with science. What I said is that creationists are uniquely unequipped to do the science required to make the case. Scientists challenge evolution every day — almost completely unsuccessfully, but still they do it. Creationists haven't challenged evolution since 1820, perhaps since 1790. Intelligent design hasn't challenged evolution either. Why is that?
Does this failure to make a challenge mean that creationists and IDists are incapable of believing in divinely-guided anything, Bradford? No, it just means your question is way wide of the mark.
Comment by edarrell — November 24, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Were you hinting that Christians should embrace the uniquely unChristian ideology of creationism, Bradford? I hadn't thought of that until I reread.
Nothing suggests Christians need to join creationists in their war on science. I didn't suggest that, and it's impossible to take that from what I said.
Comment by edarrell — November 24, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Intelligent design hasn't challenged evolution either. Why is that?
ID does not have to challenge evolution to make its case. There are other ways of imputing ID including a challenge directed at point of origin. This has been repeatedly explained and just as repeatedly ignored.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Nothing suggests Christians need to join creationists in their war on science. I didn't suggest that, and it's impossible to take that from what I said.
The following amounts to an attack on science:
Believing in theistic evolution is not an attack on science. No scientific principles are undermined. It is not nibbling at science. What nibbles at science is insistence that science be used as a bulwark against a belief in God. Moran seems to have forgotten that science is not the podium upon which attacks should be launched against non-scientific (as opposed to unscientific) views.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2006 @ 11:01 pm