More on PZ Myers' Public Boasting
by JoyWell, I did a little homework after reading Mike's blog PZ Myers on Tenure and ID. There Mike cites PZ's assertions over on Pharyngula [Beckwith's tenure decision] and it turns out that the discrimination PZ brags that he will use in his position at UMM [University of Minnesota Morris] to deny tenure to people who support ID is a boast about breaking the law:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Updates on employment discrimination lawsuits
Judging the Future: First Amendment Concerns
Political and Religious Belief Discrimination on Campus
Opponents of ID often state that they view ID as religion. PZ Myers is one of them. ethel_merganser is another, as stated in her comment to Mike's thread:
The basic problem with ID is that it is religion…
Judge Jones ruled in the Dover decision that ID is religion too, thus for legal purposes one's views on ID must be considered religious. A candidate may not legally be denied tenure on the basis his or her position on ID.
1. The litmus test PZ insists upon as a good reason for denying tenure is - even in his own mind - specifically religious.
2. Discrimination in hiring and advancement at publicly funded institutions based on a candidate's religious beliefs is against the law.
3. PZ has publicly advertised that he will violate the law and the constitutional rights of teachers at his university because of their religious beliefs, thereby causing them direct professional and economic harm.
The Tenure Policy (general), UMM clearly states in Section 1 -
1.2 Protection of Faculty. Denial of faculty appointment or reappointment or removal or suspension from office or censure or other penalty must not be based upon any belief, expression or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom.
Section 7 gets even more specific:
7.7 Improper Termination of Probationary Appointments. A person holding a regular probationary appointment who has been given notice of termination may petition the Judicial Committee to review that action. The Judicial Committee will not base its ruling on the merits of the decision itself, but will review allegations that the decision was based in significant degree upon any of the following:
1. Personal beliefs, expressions or conduct which fall within the liberties protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom as established by academic tradition and the constitutions and laws of the United States and the state of Minnesota;
2. Factors proscribed by applicable federal or state law regarding fair employment practices;
3. Substantial and prejudicial deviation from the procedures prescribed in subsections 7.4 and 7.6 and the procedural rules promulgated pursuant to those subsections;
4. Failure to consider data available at the time of decision bearing materially on the faculty member's performance;
5. Demonstrable material prejudicial mistakes of fact concerning the faculty member's work or conduct;
6. Other immaterial or improper factors causing substantial prejudice; or
7. Other violation of University policies or regulations.
Once again, the meat of PZ's blog states:
I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I'd rather not have crackpots promoted. Beckwith may be a nice fellow with a commendable publication record, but when it gets right down to it, his untenable position on intelligent design puts him smack in the middle of the tinfoil hat brigade. And that position on ID is a focus of many of his publications, so it is certainly a legitimate criterion for judging him.
My goodness. One wonders if the UMM administration is aware of PZ's public boasting, and what they think about it.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Joy,
I'd generally agree with you that a person shouldn't be denied tenure based on their beliefs. After all, you can still believe in ID and in "Darwninian" evolution if you so decide. So, even a biology professor who believes in ID shouldn't be fired simply on those grounds. In fact, I know lot's of scientists who believe in God which I consider to be irrational. I would certainly not vote against them getting tenure based on that.
However, what would happen, if, e.g., a professor in a medical school who was a Jehovah's Witness started teaching students that blood tranfusions were wrong? That's quite analogous to a biology prof teaching ID (i.e., religion) in biology classes. In both cases they should be denied tenure. Or how about a physics prof who didn't believe in quantum theory and so refused to teach it? So there is a line which, once crossed, justifies denial of tenure.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
ps: a further thought. ID is "religion" but the assertion that ID is science is simply wrong. While I disagree generally with PZ the "meat" of his argument is directed against those who insist that ID is science not those who believe in ID itself.
If you agree that ID i sreligion then, presumably, you have some sympathy for PZ's compliant which is against those who say that ID is science. It can't be both.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Hi, Ethel. Thanks for the response. Your posts to Mike's thread were well reasoned and made significant points that other ID opponents seem to have missed entirely on this subject. I had posted a question to that thread which went unanswered, so thought I'd go looking around at the legal situation, and at the UMM policy (because you'd mentioned policy, and I wondered if PZ would be violating his own university's rules on this). Turns out, he would be in violation.
To your question, I'd first have to say I don't believe that higher education - for legal adults - needs to be overly concerned about divergent views in the classroom, or even about professors with divergent views. That kind of challenge and exposure to differing worlviews is actually good for 'em. It's not conscripted children with teachers as surrogate parents/authorities.
The blood transfusion thing for JWs is purely an interpretation of a half of a single passage in Leviticus (I think) - basically: "Thou shalt not eat any blood or any fat at all." Since JWs do indeed eat bacon, wear mixed-fiber clothing and violate various Levitical laws on a daily basis, it's pretty stupid to kill your children for half a verse in a priestly rulebook. My opinion. I think most sane 18-year olds would see it as stupid too, and the prof would be a laughing stock. Presuming s/he could get tenure in the first place. In which case s/he would have to know all about blood transfusions, their pluses and minuses, dangers, uses, etc. And would have to teach that as well, or s/he isn't fit to teach medicine.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Actually no, I don't have sympathy for Myers' position. But that's because I have found him to be an Evangelical Atheist with a hefty mean streak, and a generally nasty guy. He hates religion of all varieties, and that deeply poisons his opinions with bile.
[Disclaimer: Nasty guys come and go in science every generation, so PZ's in good company. Newton savored ruining people - and later, he savored killing them. Physics has had more than its share of mean people too. The turf wars are famous...]
PZ thinks ID is Creationism warmed-over, and there is merit in that view for quite a few ID-believers who are also Creationists. But he can't deny tenure to a Creationist either, for the same legal reasons I cited. And given the fact that there are many practicing scientists who are also Creationists - historically and at present - denying a scientific livelihood to people who have traditional religious beliefs is just a bigoted attempt to keep people of faith out of the sciences. I'm agin' it, and so are the courts.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Joy,
Thanks for the reply - I certainly agree with much of your post. Actually, much of introductory science education is specified in curricula and allows little room for the sort of "free roaming" discussions you allude to. If a professor deviates from the syllabus then it generates complaints from students and also from faculty. The degree program relies on certain topics being taught and in a certain order. So, teaching ID in Biology would be grounds for denying tenure - by "teaching it" I mean teaching it as if it were "science." Discussing it occassionally in a neutral way or stating that it isn't science is different. Telling students that ID is science when it's actually religion could certainly be grounds for dismissal if the prof kept doing it. Equally, teaching Swahili in a chemistry class would get one fired.
I agree on the hypothetical JW prof but that wasn't really my point. Ridiculous or not the blood thing is a "religious belief." If you can argue that some religious beliefs are ludicrous and some not then you have essentially abolished religion altogether. The point of religious freedom is that whether they are right or wrong, crazy or not, they are entitled to protection. So the JW prof could _only_ be fired for _teaching_ that blood transfusions are wrong but not for believing privately that they are wrong, or even for stating publiclly that they are wrong provided that he or she made clear that he or she wasn't speaking in his or her official capacity.
But, I take your point that PZ's boasting is unhelpful and certainly goes against University regulations if he would vote against someone simply for holding a private belief.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Joy,
But what about the specific point that PZ directs his venom at those who state that "ID is science" and ***not*** (at least in what you quoted) those who simply believe in ID? That is quite a big difference - the same as accepting that an Episcopalian is entitled to their religious views but also stating that someone who thinks that Episcopalianism is a sub-branch of physics is a lunatic.
Etehl
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pm
ps: actually the JW belief is based on Acts 15 where it says to "abstain from blood". That it appears in the NT makes it more difficult to dismiss.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
joy,
What is the basis for your accusations against Newton? (I ask in this thread since you brang them up in this thread.)
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
My take on the JW position is of course subjective (since I used the word "stupid") because we knew a nice JW family when we lived in Virginia farm country after my husband got out of the Navy. They gave us our pet goat, Ralph carpooled to work with my husband, and we babysat each other's children on occasion. One day the subject came up and I was informed that if one of my kids got hurt and needed a transfusion, they'd refuse (in loco parentis) because that meant my kid would go to hell. I have very seldom been so furious in my life!
They could maybe kill their own kids if the state didn't jump in soon enough, but killing mine is beyond the pale. My husband and his Jewish friend rigged the car the very next day when they picked Ralph up. Had bags with red-dyed water in them hanging on the door-hooks, plastic tubing strapped to their arms. Ralph decided he should drive himself to work after that…
Yes, Ralph was a working scientist in applied physics. He was well educated, knew his job, and did it well enough to keep it. His beliefs, applied to me and mine, were outrageous. So we let him know about it in no uncertain terms. But that's not work policy, that was friends at home. I sincerely doubt that Ralph, if he were a professor of health physics at some university, would ever have brought his views on blood transfusion into the classroom.
On this blog, we like our independent status. I do not think teleological design is a religious issue, I think it's superficially evident and possibly quantifiable. I know it will only be 'science' when science itself says so, but that's not a good reason not to speculate, examine and explore. And if I were a biology prof asked point-blank about my view, I'd probably offer it. I do not see that as anti-science at all, I don't see it as preaching, and I don't see it as mind-destroying. Higher education can handle it.
Again, my opinion. Thanks again!
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 pm
ethel,
"But what about the specific point that PZ directs his venom at those who state that 'ID is science' and ***not*** (at least in what you quoted) those who simply believe in ID? That is quite a big difference - the same as accepting that an Episcopalian is entitled to their religious views but also stating that someone who thinks that Episcopalianism is a sub-branch of physics is a lunatic."
I was going to mention this point, but you beat me to it. And it is, indeed, a huge difference. I wonder, though, whether PZ Myers would treat someone who thought that ID could be science any differently than he claims he would treat someone who thought that "ID is science". I get the feeling he wouldn't, and that would be religious (under the current, incorrect, cultural/academic view that "ID is religious" in nature) discrimination on PZ Myers' part.
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Actually, I was wrong. It still wouldn't be "religious discrimination". Just bigoted stubbornness and boorishness.
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Joy,
The awful thing about the JWs is that the Wtachtower Society now has a semi-secret set of rules that permit essentially all parts of blood to be used. However, because they claim to speak for God they don't publicly acknowledge this and so most of the rank and file JWs don't understand this. Thi sleads to the awful scenario that a JW could die (or let their kid die) by refusing a blood fraction that their religion actually permits. It's criminal.
On teaching science - higher ed can't handle individuals teaching whatevr they want. There has to be a syllabus and an agreed upon curriculum, if for no other reason that students want jobs at the end of it. Provided people teach the accepted curriculum then certainly they can believe what they want and discuss their beliefs with students in the proper setting.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Douglas,
I tend to agree with you on PZ. Like Behe he seems to have abndoned research for pushing an agenda. While I agree with the contents of the agenda I don't particularly like having PZ Myers be the public face of evolutionary science.
What many scientists forget is that while science itself is not a religion much of the satisfaction that scientists get from doing science is because of its social aspects (conferences, recognition, teaching etc.). nd os in that sense the practice of science is a lot like a religion. These avenues aren't open to most people and so why should they be dissed for having a religion? I only really object when religious views are dangerous, contradict reality or promote intolerance.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Ethel: Wasn't aware of Acts, since I was told it was one of the Levitical laws. Which are taken or left based mostly on what some self-appointed 'prophet' tells the sheep they must believe. Highly hypocritical IMO, but people can believe what they want to believe. They just can't do my believing for me. It struck me as a Kosher dietary regulation, and as I mentioned, we had a Jewish friend too (and I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood). Diet is important, but medical procedures aren't diets. In my experience, religious people will take some things as absolute, and other things as non-absolute. Human nature, and if there's God, He surely understands human nature.
Douglas: I got that from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. The appendix note begins with; "Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes…"
It goes on to describe Newton's treatment of the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who Newton believed was "withholding information" he needed for Principia, and his notoriously nasty treatment of Gottfried Leibniz (from whom Newton 'borrowed' calculus, and about whose death Newton bragged he played a part). The last paragraph on the bio-sketch states:
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
LOL!!! What good is "preview" if you don't catch the typos? "Warden of the Royal Mind" indeed… That should be "Mint" of course.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
and I thought you were referring to Dick Cheney!
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Ethel,
Good point. The problem is that everything is so vague. What does PZ mean by "ID?" How does he define "science?" If belief in ID is a religion, is one of the tenets of this religion the belief that ID is science?
For many years now, I have stated that I do not think ID is science (and explained why). The main objection to my position I hear from other ID proponents is that they think I am conceding that ID is nothing more than subjective fantasy. Many people, on both sides of the aisle, dichotomize human inquiry into "science vs. religion," "objective vs. subjective," and "reason vs. faith." While forcing all human inquiry into these categories is far too crude, such attempts do influence the way many posture.
So I guess it depends on what someone means when they claiming ID is science. Do they mean the scientific community has embraced ID? Do they mean the scientific evidence has established the reality of ID? If so, then they are misrepresenting science. But I would suspect that most scientists who think ID is science would not go this far, and think more along the lines that intelligent design is part of objective reality/history and can be approached with testing. Of course, the burden is on such folks to come up with the testing and results. But since the hypothesis stage is part of science, and occurs prior to the experimental design and results, it is hard for me to castigate them for believing that ID is science.
Anyway, if we get back to Myers and the policy that Joy found, we read:
In other words, belief that "ID is science" falls under "any belief, expression or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom."
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Mike,
The key here is 'prior to experimental design and results." If a hypothesis leads naturally to some sort of experiment then it is part of science. Also, the hypothesis should be accepted provisonally as only that - a hypothesis. That is, scientists wouldn't generally build a political machine to push a hypothesis that hadn't yet been tested.
Also - and this is hugely important - a hypothesis is not worth publishing until it has been proven to have validity. Try to publish a hypothesis separate from experimental or theoretical testing and you won't usually get very far. It's fine for ID to make hypotheses but what matters is the experimental testing of them and the acceptance that the hypothesis could be proved wrong by the experiment.
Any old hypothesis doesn't qualify as science just because making hypotheses is part of science. A hypothesis is part of the scientific method and qualifies as "science" only if it leads to experiments that can confirm or falsify it. In most cases those experiments have to be done before the hypothesis can be taken seriously. An exception is if the hypothesis springs from some theoretical model and immediate verification i simpossible because it requires, e.g., building a supercollider. Still, the hypothesis is considered provisionally to be just that - a hypothesis and not "scientific fact."
Part of ID's problem is artificially separating hypothesis generation from testing when science expects hypotheses to be tested before publication. Otherwise the literature would be orders of magnitude larger than it is and it would be full of wild guesses.
So what about the JW doctor who believes that refusing blood transfusions is medical science?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Ethel said:
The Dick has a mind? …oh, yeah. I forgot that males of the species have two of 'em… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I don't know if there are JW physicians in practice at publicly funded institutions of higher learning or at public hospital trauma units. Though I sincerely doubt that any physician could justify to any oversight panel withholding effective treatment for his own personal religious beliefs. Such a situation would be of immediate and drastic concern, and other doctors on staff would no doubt call in the authorities right away. As is done now if a JW refuses treatment for himself or herself or their children.
So I don't see the problem you want us to think is present. I don't believe it's present. I have sued for malpractice and filed a series of formal complaints to regulators (and won) precisely because physicians refused to give blood transfusions to my son when they were more than called for. Had to go outside the 'team' to a GP for that, and he was absolutely appalled. But that had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with bad doctors. They're a dime a dozen, and you aren't allowed to know who they are before you put your life in their hands.
People believe what they believe regardless of what you or I or PZ or anyone else thinks they should believe. If they let it supersede professional ethical standards, they're liable to sanction for their violations. That it happens too often is evident because we fund entire departments and agencies who do nothing but enforce the rules. Again, this is human nature.
Appealing to the various shortcomings of human beings as reason to practice bigotry doesn't serve humanity very well. We surely all know this. So I don't tend to excuse bigotry, no matter where it comes from. Am I opinionated myself? Yeah, I'm known for it. I also know I'm sometimes wrong, and try to learn from that when I can. But I will never condone illegal acts on the basis of some boogeyman fairy tale about what will happen if we let people with certain metaphysical beliefs into our little self-important cliques. Of which science is one, and I've dealt with its pomposity all my life. Scientists can be wrong too, you know.
History will judge. Because if there is teleological design in life, science will eventually accept it. How's that for faith? §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Mike Gene writes: "Do they mean the scientific evidence has established the reality of ID? If so, then they are misrepresenting science."
I'm not sure Behe would agree with Mike on this. If I understood him correctly, he thinks Irreducible Complexity provides an adequate criterion for determining if something is intelligently designed.
But even if we reject IC as an adequate criterion for ID (and should we?), I think Dembski's pulsar showed — at the very least — that we can know that something exhibits ID, without knowing who designed it or how. For those who aren't familiar with his thought experiment, this is part of it in a nutshell: Imagine a pulsar that is sending long complex messages in morse code (as many messages as it takes to convince you that the signals are intelligently designed). The point is, we would know it was intelligently designed, even though we would have no way of "testing" it. And if we admit we can know that something is intelligently designed without being able to "test" it, then at least in principle, ID in organisms is knowable, without being able to "test" it. Admittedly the level of certainty would be much lower, but it may still be high enough to count as knowledge.
Comment by Bilbo — April 22, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
ethel,
"Also - and this is hugely important - a hypothesis is not worth publishing until it has been proven to have validity. Try to publish a hypothesis separate from experimental or theoretical testing and you won't usually get very far. It's fine for ID to make hypotheses but what matters is the experimental testing of them and the acceptance that the hypothesis could be proved wrong by the experiment."
What do you think of "String Theory", and all those physicists who've got their lab-coats in an uproar over it? I think it'd be interesting to find out if PZ Myers would vote to grant tenure to, say, Michio Kaku, or some other big-name in "String Theory". If he was to be consistent, he'd have to say "No".
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Bilbo: Hi, Bilbo. I personally think that both Behe and Dembski have contributed significant benchmarks to the quest. They may have their problems, and that's what the criticism process highlights - even when that process is colored by bigotry, as it is on this topic. Whenever bigotry raises its ugly head, you can be sure that somebody's missing some pertinent information, and the debate isn't over.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Douglas,
I pretty much agre with this assessment of string theory;
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~...
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Joy,
It really doesn't matter whether there are actual examples of JW doctors who are against blood transfusions, since, in principle there could be. However, the Watchtower Society has actually issued directions to JW doctors and nurses, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...'s_Witnesses_and_blood#_note-19
(go to where Ref. 20 appears).
So we could have a situation where a JW medical school professor decides to teach that his religious views are science. How does this differ from a biology prof. teaching that ID is sicence? I'd add that Andrea's latest article in Nature Immunology makes the point that certain ID views could retard developments in immunology, so the analogy is not so far fetched.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:18 pm
[...] kes time for some silliness Accusing PZ In a post entitled "More on PZ Myers' Public Boasting," someone named Joy writes: [T]he discrimination PZ brags that he w [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » Accusing PZ — April 22, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Ethel: Physics is SUCH fun, isn't it? You know, when you think (after what's fairly well understood at this point, including "Unitary Crisis" in the Standard Model) educationally, physics just has to be the most exciting field of endeavor. Including applications, of course.
I has such excellent science teachers. In high school and college (took a genetics course once while engaged in crystallography just because Isaac Asimov was the lecturer). They were great teachers NOT by making me do rote memorization of factoids - which I was good at - but because they let me know science isn't a done deal. That's exactly what I'd learned from my father, who let us kids know all about the Big Bang back when the "consensus opinion" was that it was garbage.
Science isn't history (though it contains history), it's a quest for knowledge. And in human minds, a quest for truth. Humans invented it, humans conduct it. And whenever humans are involved, you're going to get human nature whether you like it or not.
My sister's a biologist (plant physiologist) who has taught general biology all her career because her husband's in the State Dept. and they have to move every 3 years or so. That was quite a sacrifice, considering she was once the world's foremost expert on American Mandrake as a treatment for cancer. It's not because she couldn't 'do' that she became a teacher.
The design of life and its teleology is superficially apparent. No amount of scientific pontificating from on high is ever going to convince human beings living life on this planet that what they see isn't real. The whole idea of trying to convince them seems entirely fruitless to me. Why not look at the appearance and see if it means something? Medicine would be the primary receiver of benefit in this area, and quite a bit of medical research is suggesting strongly that working with design is more useful than pretending it's all just accidental/deterministic [RM-NS]. Even Darwin would approve, it seems to me.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
ethel,
Have there been any peer-reviewed articles about "String Theory" published? About "Multi-verses"
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:03 pm
It "really doesn't matter?" Whoa, Ethel. This is precisely the bigotry I oppose. You can't keep people out of your clique - or otherwise harm them materially - just because you think they MIGHT someday act on their religious beliefs over their professional training and violate ethical regulations. Thought crime is not yet an official crime in this nation (political rhetoric aside).
The doctors I sued and filed complaints against weren't JWs. They refused blood transfusions because without them, my son would die (as he did). That human nature issue was way more sordid than what was ethically 'right' or 'wrong' in the actual practice of medicine, and as I mentioned, had nothing at all to do with religious beliefs in anyone. Except perhaps us, because we believed God was in charge and they hated that whole idea. That's a whole saga of its own, though.
Yet because of that, I could just as easily lodge the same sort of complaint against PZ's attitude and your own. That there might come a time when the faith of the PATIENT results in deadly discrimination by the doctor. I've got the particulars and volumes of physical evidence on that.
See, this is why bigotry is judged wrong by the collective. Even when individuals don't recognize it in themselves. It's always going to be a problem, and that's why we have departments and agencies to police such things. You wouldn't have weeded any of those doctors out of medical school for their religious beliefs. But their anti-religious beliefs killed my only son. That means I'm even less likely to overlook such bias as PZ expresses.
You can write that off to quirky personal issues, but I don't. You'll have to accept that FAPP.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Douglas,
I had string theory in mind when I mentioned some exceptions that might need a supercollider. I'm no expert in string theory but it has led to supersymmetric gauge theories which may be testable when the Hadron collider goes online. Of course there have been papers published on string theory. It is however, something of an exception from mainstream science.
I understand where you are going with this - but the point still stands that science is not about publishing hypotheses that can neither be tested nor have any basis in anything but faith. Even string theorists would concede that string theory might be wrong but would Dembski ever concede that God didn't design life? He now suggests that original sin produced evil in the world before that sin was committed. To what ends will he not go to provide a rationale for what he already "knows" is truth? Basically, this means that plate tectonics is the direct pre-consequence of Eve eating a fruit in the garden of Eden. Whatever it is it is not science. String theory might be misguided but it isn't religion. Do we really want Dembski's views to permeate all areas of science? For that is what teaching ID as science would lead to.
But the bottom line in all of this is that ID will have to take its place in the market place of ideas and live with the judgement of that marketplace. If ID-ers cannot formulate experiments to test their "theories" then whether that is fair or unfair in regard to string theorists they will have to get used to it or accept that they need to come up with testable hypotheses.
But I for one would call ID's bluff and and give Behe and Dembski 1 million dollars each as a seed grant and ask them to produce something. Also, I'd ask them to produce an actual textbook on ID that is concrete and which demonstrates how ID is useful, e.g., in devleoping long term strategies for medicine, technology development, etc.
My sincere view is that Dembski and some others are charaltans who are getting much publicity for themselves by exploiting the perception that science is treating them unfairly. Given the chance to actually do something and test some hypotheses they'd run 10 miles. As I've noted earlier Behe actually has that chance being a biochemist with a laboratory.
Sadly it is almost impossible to disabuse people who have formulated conspiracy theories. And there are always smart individuals who will exploit that natural human tendency. If you read stuff by people who believe in UFOs, homeopathy, spoon bending and the rest, their basic complaint is the same as ID's is - we are being ignored. There's usually someone doing well by exploiting this situation.
Scientists spend most of their time doing research not complaining and engaging in speculation - it's really about time that the well-funded ID supporters came up with some convincing evidence.
At it's root ID approaches the problem of life by already knowing the answer. That is mainly what makes it unscientific.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Joy,
I understand your sensitivity on this, and I had no idea when I first posted this example that you would have had a personal and tragic experience with this. But I do disagree with you labelling my statements as "bigotry."
I am simply asking you to consider the hypothetical situation where a JW doctor in a medical school ***actually does*** teach that refusing blood is scientific. By the arguments presented by you and others then this would be protected under freedom of religion. I argue that it would constitute grounds for dismissal - not their beliefs but their act in teaching this religious doctrine as science.
But surely it is reasonable to anticipate what might happen if a Jehovah's Witness is employed as a doctor or nurse when that might jeapoardize somebody's life? How is that bigotry - especially when the JWs actually encourage JW medical professionals to report JW patients who accept blood.
Again, I'm not recommending dismissal for beliefs but when those beliefs translate into actions that cross certain boundaries they may then be grounds for dismissal.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Ethel: It's been more than a dozen years and I've a grandson to cherish, so I have learned to live with it. It hasn't changed any of my opinions about science itself, or about whether or not life is intelligently designed. It's just experience with prejudice that ended up being fatal, and that is always a personal issue.
Your hypothetical "what-if" is entirely oppositional to my physically evident and judicially established "what-then." That's all I was alluding to. Mike and I have both posted lengthy tirades about the "New Eugenics" so many of the most vocal anti-ID talking heads from science promote, and it's no secret that they view people with religious beliefs as number 1 on their elimination list. I speak of this as a victim of this very prejudice. I have the evidence to support it and the rulings to establish it. It was the very first (and to my knowledge only) legally adjudicated Miracle in jurisprudence in this country. That's a precedent.
Your hypothetical is still hypothetical, isn't it? Can you offer a single example from real life to support your fears? I know nothing about you, and I've arranged things online so that you can know basically nothing about me. My words are all I have to offer, and those may be taken or not as the reader sees fit.
What I have seen and experienced in the realm of science over way too many decades (including medical science and applied physics) isn't a particularly compelling advertisement for career paths. So yeah, I do have a bad attitude. At the same time, I do recognize first-hand experience as a telling factor in what people believe about all sorts of things. Including how absolute science in this or that application really is. You're never going to convince anybody with first-hand experience that it's all hypothetical. Because it's not.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
ethel,
"At it's root ID approaches the problem of life by already knowing the answer."
That is simply, and quite obviously, absolutely untrue. It is true of some INDIVIDUAL IDists (myself included), but not all. And, being confident of knowing a metaphysical answer beforehand doesn't necessarily say anything about one's ability or willingness to do science of any sort. Otherwise, we might as well discard any science that has been done by all those multitudes of convinced atheists, since they think they "already know[...] the answer". ID, at its "root", seeks to address the question of what is Designed, and how Design can be detected. Even if all its proponents believed in God (which they don't), that doesn't mean humans have yet developed the ability to detect God's Design (maybe we have; maybe we haven't). (I'd say we have, of course.)
The very question, "What is 'Design', and can it be scientifically or informationally determined?" falls within the scientific realm. It's a perfectly good scientific question. The question itself has no implication for nor dependence on any religion. I'm surprised that such otherwise intelligent people fail to see this about ID.
That is mainly what makes it unscientific.
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Joy,
My point is ismple - there are rules in place to prevent educators teaching their own personal beliefs as if they are facts. The hypothetical JW example was just to point that out. But I can give you a real example. A professor of mathematics taught numerical analysis in every course no matter what the actual subject of the class was. If it was algebra he taught numerical anlysis; if it was calculus he taught numerical analysis; if it was partial differential equations he taught numerical analysis; if it was numerical analysis he taught numercial analysis. He was fired.
So, you can be fired for teaching your own personal ideas about what should be taught. Disguisng those ideas as "religion" does not provide protection. Myers is wrong to suggest firing someone for their beliefs but right to suggest firing someone if they teach - as opposed to simply believing - those beliefs as fact when they aren't. That's why my post was not promoting bigotry.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
There is already a flourishing branch of science/mathematics that addresses that very question, albeit from a different direction, by asking by what mechanisms complex structures can arise. For example, how do beehives arise? Do the bees design the hive up-front or can it arise from a set of simple rules applied by bees individually. It turns out that the latter is possible. If ID supporters could produce some metrics by which design could unambiguously be inferred then that would be interesting. Indeed that is what "otherwise intelligent people" are consistently asking of the ID people. It is their persistent failure to produce the goods while blaming it on bias that is the reason they can't get published. For example, Behe's moustrap and his false statements on Immunology.
Also, every time that ID people have proposed such metrics people have examined them seriously and disproved them which is the normal scientific process. So what's the complaint?
In fact, this is, in a nutshell summarizes the attitude of many people who don't get tenure in various fields. They blame their failure to produce evidence/results on a negative bias against them or their ideas. In fact, the negative bias is most often a realistic assessment of the quality of their ideas and their own failure to prove their critics wrong by generating hard evidence.
Since most scientists don't really believe that Design can be inferred by some set of criterion then the field is wide open for Dembski and Co. They have ample sources of funding, access to state of the art labs and computers - so what's the problem? Why are ID supporters so keen on convincing people of the merits of Design before the evidence is in? Why not bug Dembski to provide the evidence and demonstrate that his ideas actually work?
Douglas, tell me how you infer design? What experiments do you propose that would infer design. What's the proposal? Where' s the beef? Can you unedrstand the stuff that Dembski writes? I think you are being taken for a ride by the Dembskis o fthe world.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Isn't adherence to established guidelines (and ethical oversight) the whole point of this exercise, Ethel? Whether it's religion or just your personal beliefs about a certain approach to the subject (i.e., process biology), it should be clearly prefaced and categorized in the curriculum, as what it is.
I have no problem with any of it, taught according to the regs and with some degree of oversight, as is provided by the ability for students to rate courses and professors. Asimov was a famous hard-core Evangelical Atheist, but he was so brilliant I just had to take the course. Hell, I've even had Roger Penrose as a professor. Who knows what he believes?
I am not and never will be sorry. What I object to is the censorship of ideas, and that occurs quite frequently no matter how much oversight is applied. That further devolves into the appeals processes for the oversight activities, and that eventually ends with "he says" vs. "he says." It's necessary, but not always effective against human nature or even truth.
My high school biology teacher was a Baptist minister on the side. His brother taught chemistry and physics, and I only got into the courses because my sister was so brilliant. I flunked at maths higher than geometry, but my geometry teacher stood for me in the debate because despite the fact that I was dyslexic and got my simplicities wrong, I did understand the concepts. Besides, I did really great proofs…
My teacher took us often on weekend sojourns out to Tenkiller Dam to dig fossils - there were really nifty ones there, that spoke eloquently of the land (Oklahoma is landlocked, you know) once having been ocean. I'd dug similar fossils in Kentucky as a child, and my father had walked me through the scenario so vividly that it's still present in my mind. Eons fly by so quickly when we cast our minds, don't they?
I never once was greeted with a religious argument in those classes, even though I knew for a fact that my teachers believed there were good ones to be forwarded. I respected that tremendously. If you look at the simple statistics, a high school science teacher has approximately 2 students a year (out of 100) who will go on to a career in related fields. My teachers knew, because they knew who my father was, that they had five of us to work with. Four of us became scientists, one went into medicine on the practical end.
I just don't see religion as the big bad boogeyman. Maybe you do, PZ certainly does. But that's prejudice, a preconceived notion - a priori conclusion. Does science really forbid such? And if so, why isn't it applied to the atheists equally?
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Joy said:
The blood transfusion thing for JWs is purely an interpretation of a half of a single passage in Leviticus (I think) - basically: "Thou shalt not eat any blood or any fat at all." Since JWs do indeed eat bacon, wear mixed-fiber clothing and violate various Levitical laws on a daily basis, it's pretty stupid to kill your children for half a verse in a priestly rulebook.
Ethel responded:
Actually the JW belief is based on Acts 15 where it says to "abstain from blood". That it appears in the NT makes it more difficult to dismiss.
Joy, it's always prudent to get one's facts straight before slamming someone's religion. I have some relatives that are JW's and as Ethel points out their refusal of blood is based on Acts15:28-29 and not on anything from the law of Moses. JW's believe that Christians are not obligated to keep any part of the ancient law covenant. The command to "abstain from blood" recorded in Acts is a Christian law. Certainly there are different ways of interpreting what "abstain from blood" entails but that it could include abstaining from blood transfusions is a logical possibility.
The experience you related about a JW neighbor claiming they would refuse a blood transfusion for your child is really bizarre. It has never been a JW policy to enforce their religous beliefs on others. In fact, JW doctors and nurses will give blood transfusions to those that want them. And it's really odd that your JW neighbor would say that your child would go to hell if given a blood transfusion since JW's don't believe in hell.
Ethel, I realize your example of a JW professor teaching a class that blood transfusion is wrong is hypothetical but I have to point out that this is something very unlikely to happen in real life. A JW professor might point out the risks associated with blood transfusions based on medical facts but wouldn't get into religious doctrine.
Comment by Jack — April 22, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Hi, Jack. I hear you. All I know of JWs is my experience with them, and it wasn't pretty even though as I said, they were nice people (however confused by theology-of-moment). Good enough in our view to have been our friends. I (and the rest of my family) haven't eaten meat in more than 30 years. I have a grandson who has never eaten meat, and he's 6'4 and hefty enough to be considerable.
Does that make me an SDA? Nope. It just means we didn't wish to be part of the death industry. Gave up television in 1978 too, don't miss it much. You'd be darned hard pressed to find us on the rolls of any denomination and/or sect you can think of or look up on the internet, despite the fact that my husband was sent to Indonesia in 1968 on a mission for the World Council of Churches. Got shot at buy Muslims and everything….
I do not see the issue Ethel (and PZ) raise. There are gates, and gatekeepers. The process works fairly well. Attempting to enforce a conformity of opinion in a university environment is silly. Attempting to force it in science - where things are ALWAYS up in the air - is bizarre. It doesn't hurt students at that level to hear about a variety of beliefs, positions and suspicions. Forbidding any of those is rust. Rust never sleeps…
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 am
Ethel says:
"Why are ID supporters so keen on convincing people of the merits of Design before the evidence is in?"
Well, why are the ID critics so keen on convincing people design is false before the evidence is in? The question "”How did the appearance of design in living systems arise"”has long been part of historical and evolutionary biology. Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. The claim "the appearance of design in biology does not result from actual design" and the claim "the appearance of design in biology does result from actual design" are not two different kinds of propositions; they represent two different answers to the same question. Design is science and not religion for the same reasons that the argument against it is science and not religion.
By the way, what would you count as evidence for design?
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 12:15 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 am
[Note: In my previous post which ended with, "That is mainly what makes it unscientific", disregard "That is mainly what makes it unscientific" - it was an overlooked leftover from a quoted portion of ethel's post.]
Comment by Douglas — April 23, 2006 @ 12:41 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 am
Ethel says: "But surely it is reasonable to anticipate what might happen if a Jehovah's Witness is employed as a doctor or nurse when that might jeapoardize somebody's life?"
Sure, but the way to handle this would be to ask the JW doctor or nurse if they had a problem giving someone a blood transfusion. It would be wrong to simply not hire someone because they were a JW.
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 1:09 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 am
??~~~~~~ Ethel Whence and whosome?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 1:20 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 am
Joy, I think you work overtime to misunderstand Myers' position and to misstate it, and then you compound it with an overwrought and underthought analysis of what the law is on the issue.
Cut to the chase: Claims that ID is good science are separate from reality. Tenure decisions may reflect that. Separations from reality may not be justified on religious grounds, for most purposes. There is no first amendment right, religious or otherwise, to be incompetent.
Comment by edarrell — April 23, 2006 @ 1:41 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:57 am
Ed: Who said what about whom/whence/wherefore? I didn't. Relative 'right' or 'wrong' is culture-dependent. Absolutes are a whole other subject of discussion… See you later…
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 1:57 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:12 am
Sorry, Joy — in tenure work, we have standards. Relativism is okay for blogs, but not for serious academic work.
Your claim that Myers' position discriminates religiously, and illegally, is specious. The law does not support what you claim, on the evidence for ID. If someone advocates ID as science, as I noted, the law does not protect them from the consequences in tenure decisions.
Comment by edarrell — April 23, 2006 @ 3:12 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 8:55 am
Most likely, Myers' references to ID are to this group. He can back up his professional judgement with a whole lot more than his critics. Which makes joy's current attempt at Pianka-ing pretty lame.
Comment by Art — April 23, 2006 @ 8:55 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
Ethel,
I understand all the distinctions you raise concerning hypotheses. As I said, I don't think ID qualifies as science. What you quote is part of a larger explanation explaining why I don't castigate ID scientists who disagree with me.
If the JW doctor is not teaching this in class, there is no problem. Myers was not talking about teaching ID in the classroom.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 9:01 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Ed:
If belief that ID is science = incompetence, such incompetence will translate into a track record of decisions that will show the person to be incompetent according to the conventional tenure criteria. Myers test is an extraneous litmus test that has no place in the tenure decision "“ "Denial of faculty appointment or reappointment or removal or suspension from office or censure or other penalty must not be based upon any belief, expression or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom."
Myers writes:
Ed, do you agree?
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 9:03 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Myers writes:
Art, do you agree?
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 9:03 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:17 am
No.
Comment by Art — April 23, 2006 @ 9:17 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 am
Mike and Jack,
I asked explicitly what would happen to a JW doctor who, hypothetically, ****WAS**** teaching that taking blood was wrong and that this position was scientific. Then could he argue that his position was religious and, therefore, protected? Same thing with TEACHING *****AS OPPOSED SIMPLY TO BELIEVING***** that ID is science.
Are people deliberately misreading what I have stated explicitly multiple times so as to avoid the question?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 11:17 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:22 am
Jack,
We're not keen on proving that Design isn't the answer. That's your mistake and the central fallacy of many ID supporters - that scientists are motivated by antipathy to ID. We do not want design to be ***taught*** until there is evidence for it. There is evidence for evolution. The default position is that a new idea must be demonstrated before it is taught, not the other way around. No one is trying to stop Dembski or Behe or others doing research are they? In fact, their output is subjected to criticism by the scientific community as are all other new ideas. What more do they want? What they want is recognition for ideas that they have not succeeded in proving. The fault is with them not with the scientificic community.
And Jack, do you believe that you can prove a negative proposition?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 11:22 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:31 am
I've noticed there are a number of different topics being addressed under this entry. I'll stick with "Is ID science?" If I understand Mike Gene's position, it could be stated, "Not yet, but it could be." I think this doesn't square with Behe's view, which I think could be stated, "ID already is science."
Ethel's objection is that ID isn't testable. But I think Dembski's pulsar shows that it is: We can — in principle — be presented with enough improbable phenomena that allows us to conclude intelligent design. It is only a matter, then, to show that this is the case in biology. Behe thinks he has done this. So far, he hasn't been falsified.
If I understand Mike, he would take IC as a strong suggestion of ID, and use it as a way to formulate hypotheses about how it could have been designed.
I think Behe would say IC is a positive indication of ID, and that the job of the scientist is to figure out how it was done (front loaded? or occasional intervention throughout natural history? or a continuous intervention?).
I think the difference between Mike and Behe is the relative strength they would bestow upon IC as evidence of ID.
Comment by Bilbo — April 23, 2006 @ 11:31 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 am
Jack,
On the JWs - maybe you got your information directly from your neighbours. However, the Watchtower Society at one point encouraged JW doctors and nurses to inform on JW patients who broke the rules on blood. Those who break the rules are shunned by family and all JWs - which means they literally do not even greet then. Since being a JW means that you have few freinds outside the JWs then this amounts to almost total isolation. Your neighbours probably didn't tell you this because JWs have a policy called theocratic warfare that amounts to a license to lie to protect their religion. Much information on JWs and blood can be found here:
http://www.ajwrb.org/
But what I fail to understand is why people divert the question by arguing that my hypothetical would "never happen." A hypothetical is to illustrate a point and arguing about the probability of the hypothetical actually occurring is besides the point, surely? The point is that this obviously unacceptable scenario is a direct analog of a biology professor teaching ID in a classroom or research setting. Would that never happen either?
As a footnote; the real reason that you'd never find a JW professor teaching that blood transfusions are wrong is that the JWs have so demonized higher education that Jw doctors are as common as hen's teeth.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 11:37 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:44 am
Bilbo,
The difficuly here is that much of what seemed improbable and incomprehensible 2000 or 500 or 100 or 10 or 1 year ago is now well understood. How probable was it to the Catholic Church that the Earth orbited the Sun? This is just "God of the Gaps" stuff.
Further, ID cannot be falsified - this is one ingredient that makes it "not science."
It's not hard to find phenomena we don't understand. But the clear trend is that science produces understanding and mechanisms as time goes on. Why should we conclude that the year 2006 is special and that, e.g., we will never understand some phenomenon or other? This is simple a temporal version of believing that the Earth sits at the center of the universe.
What's the betting that in the year 2014 science will have advanced and ID will have not?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 11:44 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Ethel: The subject is PZ's boast that he would vote against tenure for any candidate who believes ID is science. To be a candidate for tenure, the individual must have the sheepskins required to have been a qualified teacher at the university level for the past half-decade, and his or her record as a teacher is on the table. But PZ said not a single word about what is taught in the candidate's classes. What the candidate believes about ID is his sole criteria.
There are currently ID courses offered or planned in various universities. I'm guessing PZ would nominate himself to teach such a class at UMM. Would his beliefs disqualify him for the position?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Joy,
I have already agreed with you and others that belief should not be a criterion for tenure/firing etc and that on this issue Myers is wrong.
I am now asking you what should be the fate of a biology professor who actually teaches ID as science in class. Can you provide a direct answer to that? For example, do you think that this behavior is protected by the articles you cited in your original post as being religious freedom?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Direct answer? …what's to teach?
If a professor of biology were to have his students read Behe - who is in fact a biologist - and then entertained discussion of the IC concept, it wouldn't violate any tenets of science or education. If a professor of mathematics were to have his students read Dembski - who is in fact a mathematician - and then entertained discussion of the SC concept, it wouldn't violate any tenets of science or education.
The only tenets being violated by mention of alternative theories in university-level science classes belong to scientism, not to science or to education.
But the truth is there's not much more than IC/SC to talk about per scientific arguments in favor of ID. That wouldn't take up much time.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I didn't say "mention" or "discuss" or "allude to." I said 'teach."
Teaching ID as science means telling the class that "ID is science" or "ID is the best theory that we have to explain life" in the same way that you would tell your class "quantum mechanics is the best description of atomic physics." You don't ask for students opinions on whether quantum mechanics is right or not, you teach them that it is. So again, I ask, what happens if a biology professor taught that? Would they be protected or not by religious freedom?
Why is it to so hard to confront the concept of what it actually means to teach ID?
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
ethel,
"I asked explicitly what would happen to a JW doctor who, hypothetically, ****WAS**** teaching that taking blood was wrong and that this position was scientific."
There really is no comparison between that JW position, and ID. The JW position has been effectively disproven, while ID has not (particularly, since it is still in the "growth" phase, subject to correction and revision, much like Darwinian Evolutionary theory).
Comment by Douglas — April 23, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Douglas,
Not at all - you can't disprove a religious belief. So you cannot prove that the JW position on blood is wrong. In fact, even if you could prove it wrong it would make no difference because religious beliefs are protected, right or wrong.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
You have an odd conception of what teaching science at the university level is all about, Ethel. And an odd belief that quantum mechanics represents "the best description of atomic physics." If I were teaching physics at the university level, I'd go ahead and tell the truth to students. And I'd teach them how to do the math.
QM is a mathematical approximation of interacting fields of energy that predicts (quite accurately) the behavior of 'things' that don't actually exist, but do display certain properties. Until the fields get to a certain energy level, where it starts spewing total nonsense. That's called "Unitary Crisis," and if a university-level professor is NOT telling the kids about it, s/he isn't doing the job.
I would also teach that most concerned physicists know the theory is either incomplete or flat-out wrong despite the fact that it 'works' FAPP so it's still in use (and they'd better learn it). And I'd introduce the host of upcoming alternatives out there hoping to take the field so recently vacated by the failure of QM at high energies. Just so's the kiddos know what they're getting into… It's a wide-open field right now, and somebody out there is going to rack up some Nobels soon. Maybe one of my students!
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Joy,
I see.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Ethel, I am not a university-level physics teacher. So I really don't know much about what is required in the job description, I only know what's true about QM at this point in time. I would presume that teaching the math is required, and I'd be failing if I didn't teach it. I also presume that familiarizing the students with the entire Zoo is required, sort of like in biology when you learn the factoid list of phyla and kingdoms and such.
But science is not (and never has been) about Absolute Truth, and it's certainly not a done deal - as you clearly stated in your post to Douglas expressing your faith that 'holes' in our knowledge will eventually be filled. Science is always provisional, subject to constant revision, updating per new evidence and new technologies, and even to revolutions that overturn theories completely (the "Go back to Go, do not collect $200" situation). There have been some revolutions in my lifetime, and I expect a few more before I'm outta here.
My opinion - and I am not a biologist - is that the NDS in biology is in a similar situation to QM these days due to advances in technology that allow us to observe things we previously couldn't observe. Cells are not "bags of goo" anymore, and pertinent-to-evolution events aren't looking as random as they were assumed for so long to be. There is a big difference between statistically random (a predictive fuzz-factor) and causally random. Quantum physics demonstrates that we CAN make amazingly accurate cumulative predictions despite statistical randomness, but we're never going to quantify anything useful from causal randomness.
Darwin didn't believe that variation was causally random. He described the action of selection that discriminated between 'fit' and 'unfit' variation - which arose in his view in a quite Lamarckian manner. "Random" mutation was a gratuitous qualifier added to the theoretics when Mendel's work was "re-discovered" after more than 70 years, suggesting an actual physical mechanism for reliable interitance of traits.
I've always wondered why the gratuitous and entirely unnecessary qualifier was tacked on. And I've always wondered why conscripted schoolchildren are force-fed RM-NS pablum, just so they can be insulted down the line for not knowing enough about evolution to have an opinion about the theory they taught as Absolute Truth in high school. It almost looks deliberate, doesn't it?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Ethel:
I understand. I've been focused on Myers views as expressed in his very popular blog.
As far as teaching ID goes, it all depends on the context. For example, if an ID proponent were to teach Allen MacNeill's course, would this be teaching ID? And we know that Behe teaches ID also, yet his Chair offered these wise words:
On the other hand, I do agree with you that ID should not be taught as something that is scientifically accepted nor should it be taught as just another biology topic. And I don't think there is any room for ID, or anti-evolutionism, in any standard biology course (i.e., Intro to Biology) because, as you say, such courses do provide the foundation for latter courses. If someone wants to teach ID, they should do so in a way similar to MacNeill and do so in a professional manner (no advocacy).
It would be good for ID proponents to follow the footsteps of Thomas Huxley. Darwin's Bulldog was quite well known for his public advocacy of Darwinism, but as Ruse pointed out in his recent book, Huxley refused to teach about Darwin in his science classes, because, at the time, Darwin's ideas had not yet earned their place in the science classroom.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Douglas said: "There really is no comparison between the JW position, and ID. The JW position has been effectively disproven, while ID has not (particularly, since it is still in the "growth" phase, subject to correction and revision, much like Darwinian Evolutionary theory)."
I agree there is no comparison between the JW position and ID but not because the JW position has been disproven by science. Not sure how that could be done. There is no comparision between the JW position and ID because the JW position is entirely religious and ID isn't.
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Jack,
Not so - read the JW pamphlets and they claim medical as well as scriptural reasons in support of their position. After all, what God tells us to do or not do must be valid scientifically, because, after all, he created us. That, in a nutshell is the JW position. You might care to reflect on the similarities between this and the theological arguments of ID proponents such as Dembski.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Oh, I dunno, Ethel. There are considerable factors in blood transfusion that should be weighed. There's the possibility of transmitted disease, there's the possibility that someone's going to screw up and give a patient blood products from the wrong blood group, etc., etc., etc. That's why medical researchers are working so hard on synthetic blood. It would presumably be "better" than real blood for most purposes by eliminating the considerable factors.
So a JW could teach that blood shouldn't be given routinely, as well as that most often a simple saline drip to replace volume will work just fine - or can be supplemented with a product group (red cells, platelets, etc.). But a JW would probably know that teaching his or her students that blood should never be offered because God says somewhere that it's a sin would get them fired. Even if s/he believes it, s/he would likely be greeted with some hefty dissent based on picking and choosing what verses or half-verses in a 4000 or 2000 year old book one cares to take as Absolute. That's religion, not science. Even JWs know that.
Besides, they don't offer 'live' blood these days. They offer reconstituted crud that's been thoroughly nuked (because the possibility of transmitted disease and adverse reaction is so high). Nuking red blood cells doesn't enhance their oxygen-carrying ability one bit, you know. When my son needed transfusion we tried to get him 'live' blood - from my husband and daughter, since I don't share their blood type. We were willing to do it directly, right now, just hook 'em up. But no, we were informed we'd have to purchase dead blood instead (at ridiculous cost), which we did. Dead blood didn't work, so he died.
I'm betting JWs have no problem with saline drips or synthetic blood. My brother-in-law had quadruple bypass surgery just last summer. He had it done in Singapore because they've developed a new procedure that didn't require his heart to be stopped (along with all attendant issues). He's fine, recovered very quickly, and didn't even lose his memory. That's real progress, don't you think?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
ethel,
"Not at all - you can't disprove a religious belief."
Actually, yes, you can, in many cases. For example, suppose Mike Gene's religious belief was that the white bunny rabbit hopping outside his lab was indestructible, and thus incapable of being killed, and it was this that caused him to worship the bunny. Suppose, then, that someone accidentally ran over the bunny with their LandRover, killing it, and the next day ravens pecked at the road-kill. I imagine that would effectively disprove Mike Gene's religious belief. Same thing, pretty much, with most sorts of religious belief, depending.
"So you cannot prove that the JW position on blood is wrong."
If their view is that blood transfusions are always deadly or harmful, then, yes, that position can be disproven. If their position on blood is only that it shouldn't be given in transfusion, then, no, one cannot disprove that. But Jack is right: ID is not a religious view, while the JW position on blood apparently is.
Comment by Douglas — April 23, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Ethel says: We do not want design to be ***taught*** until there is evidence for it. There is evidence for evolution. The default position is that a new idea must be demonstrated before it is taught, not the other way around.
Jack: You are making a mistake by pitting ID against evolution. ID isn't anti-evolution. Most ID theorists accept common descent. Besides, ID theorists are focused on the origin of life. And it sure seems to me that a teleological cause best makes sense of the data associated with the OOL on this planet. Now, since we all seem to agree that the OOL and evolution are different topics, that means that all the evidence for evolution does not give us any reason to propose a non-teleological OOL. The case presented for the non-teleological OOL is essentially an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case. Now, this is no different from the case being presented for an artificial OOL.
Ethel says: Jack, do you believe that you can prove a negative proposition?
Jack: No, but it is the ID critics that constantly challenge ID proponents to do this. Much of what they demand as evidence for ID amounts to proving evolution impossible.
Ethel says: We're not keen on proving that Design isn't the answer. That's your mistake and the central fallacy of many ID supporters.
Jack: Most evolutionary biology textbooks contain anti-design arguments (e.g., about the panda's thumb, the pentadactyl limb, the putatively "backwards" vertebrate retina). I recently read a paper by a biologist that gave a half dozen good reasons for photoreceptors to face "backwards." Are you saying it's okay to argue in science class that the vertebrate retina is poorly designed while at the same time forbidding a rebuttal in the form of evidence that the design of the vertebrate retina makes good engineering sense?
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Joy wonders whether I agree with Myers' statement:
Yes. First, this doesn't come up randomly, for art professors, or English professors. It's a topic that would come up in a tenure process only if it related to the person's field. So, having taken an oath to uphold academic standards, yes, I'd feel compelled to vote against tenure. Probably more to the point, I cannot imagine a department recommending tenure for such a person, in sciences.
It would be on a par with a history prof claiming George Washington was Catholic (he studied with Jesuits, but was Anglican so long as the law required it; there's no evidence Washington was Catholic), or with an economics professor claiming Marxism would improve the performance of the stock market in a nation.
Claims that ID is science and should be taught as such demonstrate a less-than-satisfactory understanding of evolution and its role in biology, a completely inadequate understanding of the role of science research in a university, both on the research side and the academic side, and an unfortunate and potentially dangerous misreading of the First Amendment.
I can't think of any time we reviewed a decision in a science department where the subject was so completely at odds with the rest of the field.
Consider for a moment what happened with cold fusion. After some time when consistent duplication of the first results of Pons and Fleischmann could not be achieved, even Pons and Fleischmann pulled back their paper. Scientists strive for accuracy, or should; and mind you, there is much more research data supporting cold fusion than there is supporting ID. What should a university do with a teacher who insists on teaching cold fusion as the way to go, now? Why would an ID advocate be treated any differently?
Comment by edarrell — April 23, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Ethel said: "Not so - read the JW pamphlets and they claim medical as well as scriptural reasons in support of their position. "
I did read one of their pamphlets and while it did cite many of the risks associated with blood transfusions it emphasized that the primary reason JW's refuse blood transfusions is not because they are unhealthy but because they are unholy. That is clearly a religious and not a scientific position. And I might add that this has been the JW position in countless court cases.
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
That's quite simply not true. The only ID theorist who has stated he unqualifiedly accepts common descent is Behe. Dembski is at best ambiguous about it, and IIRC he was explicitly skeptical as far as human origins are concerned. Meyer, Nelson, Kenyon, Thaxton and Wells all reject it. Not sure about Minnich - does anyone know? Almost all of the pro-ID experts who testified in Kansas rejected it. The IDEA Center has an article in which they explicitly support separate origins for the human "basic type", not to mention several articles that express scepticism at the evidence for common descent in the fossil record. The DI itself seems to consider it necessary to intervene every time a new major transitional fossil is found, as it did recently (here and here), to point out that the fossil in question cannot, for some bizarre reason or other, be really called "transitional". I'll let you interpret what that suggests about the ID Mother Ship support for common descent.
Basically, a full and complete acceptance of common descent is very much the exception, not the rule, among ID "theorists".
Comment by Andrea — April 23, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
That American flag on your avatar really had me fooled for awhile there, Ed. Now, of course, I know better. What the heck are you doing hanging around this obscure corner of the internet?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Ed
First PZ Myers and now edarrell. No offense Ed, but you don't exactly do a lot to help further the trust in the tenure decision process.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Only until Mike sees a white rabbit in the woods outside his home. Then, voila, resurrection! The belief becomes stronger.
You cannot disprove religious belief.
Comment by Art — April 23, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Yo, don't mess with a man's bunny.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Andrea said: "That's quite simply not true. The only ID theorist who has stated he unqualifiedly accepts common descent is Behe."
My mistake. What I should have said was that ID theory is compatible with large-scale evolution and common descent. Dembski says:
Intelligent design is fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as 'common descent.' (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314)
Comment by Jack — April 23, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Hmm, Dembski has said that he favors common descent (I can't remember where the exact quote is), though I guess that's not unqualified.
Comment by Deuce — April 24, 2006 @ 12:21 am
April 24th, 2006 at 8:10 am
That is true. ID is equally compatible with full-fledged CD, or with special creation of every life form, as proposed by "Of Pandas and People" and Genesis.
Dembski on human origins. As I said, he is quite explicitly skeptical of the paleoanthropological and molecular evidence for human evolution. The very same objections Dembs