Cornell offers course on intelligent design II
by KrauzeAllen MacNeill has posted an update on his course on intelligent design. Apparently, some websites (such as World Net Daily) have portrayed the course as advocating intelligent design when, in reality, it was about making students think critically about the subject. But pay attention to this:
Most disconcerting to me were some of the early comments from evolutionary biologists, who asserted that ID should not even be mentioned in a course in evolutionary biology.
Let's repeat that: Intelligent design shouldn't even be mentioned in a course on evolutionary biology. Replies MacNeill:
In answer to some of my critics from evolutionary biology, therefore, I feel that it is very appropriate for this kind of discussion to take place in a science course, rather than just a history or philosophy of biology course. Students, including science majors, are far too often not given enough credit for their ability to both formulate and judge rational arguments in a free and open forum of ideas. Despite the fact that the topic is ostensibly the philosophy of science, the debate over the validity of ID versus evolutionary theory is fundamentally a scientific debate. If scientists refuse to debate the subject, we will leave the floor open for not-quite-science, pseudoscience, and (worst of all) anti-science to claim victory, and believe me that will be what the general public perceives the ID community has achieved.
My own impression is that this course is a good idea. This is something many students are thinking about anyway, and if a professor is willing to teach it, why shouldn't students have the option of exploring it within the confines of academic discourse? Yes, some students are probably going to change their minds because of this course. A pro-ID student might find the arguments against it persuasive, and an anti-ID student might accept the arguments for it. But having your preconceptions challenged is exactly what college is about.
Let's applaud Allen MacNeill's initiative, and hope that his attempt to discuss the issue isn't twarted by forces of discontent.
Update: Allen MacNeill, in the comments at Panda's Thumb:
And if I may compliment my loyal adversaries in the Cornell IDEA Club, by presenting a forceful and well-thought-out explanation and defense of their position they have made it easier for me to see how and why we differ on these issues. Contrary to what some people on both sides of this debate have been asserting, Cornell students are not weak-kneed, muddle-headed sheep who blindly follow the dictates of either their teachers or some distant institute.
Update II: Wow, check out the rest of the comments at PT! It looks like MacNeill's colleagues aren't the only ones who are opposed to his course.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:48 am
The comments at PT do not surprise me.
Comment by Jean — April 16, 2006 @ 11:48 am
April 16th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
MacNeill writes:
You just knew this wasn't going to sit well with the PT crowd. In their minds, all proponents of ID are either stupid, dishonest, or deluded. So MacNeill's description of this student must be, well,"¦.challenged.
Sure enough, one commentator writes:
That's a new twist "“ Maxson has been victimized. But we all know that's just too tame for some critics. They want something more meaty – Maxson herself must be take down. So they start turning over some stones, find something Maxson wrote, and along comes:
Thar she blows! Sooner or later, the "liar or stupid?" rhetoric surfaces. But this one comes with a sexist flavor. Yes, why doesn't she come to PT and "explain herself" before the Enlightened Ones.
In an attempt to put a lid on some of the hate, others opt for the milder approach of psychologizing Ms. Maxson:
From here, others can begin to dip into the well of conspiratorial thinking:
And of course, Ms. Maxon also gets a "simple historical fact" wrong. What is this fact? "ID is a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea." How dare she disagree with this fact. Doesn't she know that a court room drama has proven it?! Maybe she should be made to see the upcoming movie.
One ID critic steps in it by talking about an ID proponent as if she is not stupid, dishonest, or deluded. The rest of the ID critics set out to correct this faux pas.
MacNeill better be careful. He's about two inches from becoming someone who is perceived as being too friendly with "the Forces of Darkness." Then he could be the next person to become the topic of the latest Hate-Fest.
Comment by MikeGene — April 16, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
April 16th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Nice post, MikeGene. There's a dissertation in this for someone who wants to look at the social-psychological aspects of this controversy. I wish I had the time (already did my dissertation, and now out trying to earn a living…)
Comment by Lutepisc — April 16, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
April 16th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Told ya MacNeill was on thin ice with that crowd:
Comment by MikeGene — April 16, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 2:47 am
And then there's the possibility that all of this mud-slinging will have real-world consequences for Ms. Maxon's scientific career:
Comment by Krauze — April 17, 2006 @ 2:47 am
April 17th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Ah the critics, rational as ever…
Comment by Deuce — April 17, 2006 @ 9:18 am
April 17th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Mike Gene,
"Thar she blows!"
LOL. (Note this is my first ever, ever, "LOL" [I'm pretty sure]. And deserved.)
Comment by Douglas — April 17, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Some PT poster:
"Why this is, I don't know, but Michael Shermer has given what I think is the best explanation: Smart people believe weird things because they're very good at rationalizing positions that they arrived at for non-smart reasons. It may not be a flattering psychological view, but it has nothing to do with them being stupid or liars."
Okay, so "non-smart" isn't necessarily "stupid" – I get it. But I wonder that all those oh so non-non-smart people over at PT don't realize that they themselves, in their earnest and fervent rejection of ID, might be victims of Shermer's explanation.
Comment by Douglas — April 17, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
So I'm curious…has Nick tried to defend MacNeill?
Comment by Bilbo — April 17, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
"Okay, so "non-smart" isn't necessarily "stupid" – I get it. But I wonder that all those oh so non-non-smart people over at PT don't realize that they themselves, in their earnest and fervent rejection of ID, might be victims of Shermer's explanation."
Yes, Shermer's enlightening insight bites both ways.
"And while Cornell is impressive, being a triple major indicates you're intelligent, but not necessarily wise. This student would not be the first intelligent person suckered by the ID movement."
So now you have to be "wise" to understand Darwinian evolution? Maybe they should go off into the mountains and seek a bunch of secluded monks then, because an intelligent student can't possible understand Darwinism.
Comment by jasonng — April 17, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Ok, so IDists are either stupid or dishonest, because presumably there's no way that a rational person could or should even consider that life might be a product of design. And of course, that's my problem with the typical ID critic; they tend to be unimaginative and lazy-minded. If someone doesn't even consider the possibility of ID, they just aren't thinking, and if somebody does fairly consider the possibility, they must admit that the issue of teleology in evolution remains an open question.
So why are IDists stupid or dishonest, again?
Comment by jazzraptor — April 17, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Hi Jazz,
IDists are stupid because they are nothing more than religious fundamentalist creationists. When they deny this, they also become dishonest. It's really that simple – for many critics, that is.
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 1:46 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I went over to PT to check out what was going on. Nick didn't defend MacNeill, but he apologized to MacNeill for the reaction of some of the ID critics. I got the impression that MacNeill was winning them over by allowing them to suggest strategies and evidence to convince his students how ID was wrong. I admire MacNeill's strategy. He's probably an excellent teacher. I envy his students.
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 3:40 am
Perhaps what is needed at Telic Thoughts is a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist who doesn't fit the stereotypes of those at PT or the 'average ID-critic' which M.Gene rails against. These persons have given, imo, some of the best, most-balanced criticisms of ID without resorting to such character assassinations.
The father of the IDM was a lawyer. The current leader, who now teaches in a seminary, admits the cultural renewal program has gotten ahead of the 'scientific research program' or scientific bench work. The academic position of ID 'theory' is still in the vast minority and a leading ID (who is a) biologist continues to make appeals to Mt. Rushmore. The logic/rational has not wholly yet come together.
No doubt, smart (cf. 'intelligent') people can and should examine the ideas that IDists are promoting. If McNeil can present a balanced course – great.
Why do people think he wouldn't answer my question about whether or not he would discuss the concept of 'scientism' in his course?
Comment by g arago — April 19, 2006 @ 3:40 am
April 19th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Yikes! Poor Allen MacNeill, you should see how the PTers are starting to pounce on him.
MacNeill vs. PT regulars
MacNeill is sniping at Lenny Flank, a PT regular!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2006 @ 11:39 am
April 19th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Let's not exagerate. Lenny is pouncing. But other PTers are coming to MacNeill's defense.
BTW, Lenny sounds like a real fun guy, doesn't he?
Comment by Bilbo — April 19, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Thin ice. Good thing MacNeill has some ID-bashing credentials to reach for. Take that away and what becomes of the defense?
Comment by MikeGene — April 19, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I love the bit on PT asking Maxson to come and explain herself. Open dialogue and building rapport with a tenured ID skeptic at her own university isn't enough apparently. Never mind that w/ that triple major she just might not have the time.
I get the feeling that for some of the PT types if ID didn't exist they'd have to invent it. Otherwise their psyches would collapse from the absence of anything to fume about.
Comment by roy w. — April 20, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Mike Gene: "Thin ice. Good thing MacNeill has some ID-bashing credentials to reach for. Take that away and what becomes of the defense?
"
Yes, if Behe were the one offering the course, I doubt he would get as much support from the PTers, even if he had the exact same reading list. Actually, that's a good question. I might wander over there and ask it.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Well, there I asked it. Let's see what the response is. My guess: Howls of outrage.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2006 @ 4:04 pm