Scientists Speak Out
by MikeGeneNature recently published an editorial advising the scientific community on how to respond to the growing popularity of ID on college campuses:
Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.
Some will be troubled by the suggestion that they discuss these issues in the classroom. Indeed, it is not the job of a science teacher to meddle with the way their students are brought up or to attack their core personal beliefs. Rather, the goal should be to point to options other than intelligent design for reconciling science and belief.
This did not sit well with many leading scientists.
Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution from the University of Chicago wrote a reply that was also signed off by Peter Atkins (Lincoln College, University of Oxford), Colin Blakemore (Medical Research Council, London), Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Museum, University of Oxford), Steve Jones (Galton Laboratories, University College London), Richard Lewontin (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University), John Maddox, Paul Nurse (The Rockefeller University, New York), Linda Partridge (Department of Biology, University College London), James D. Watson (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, New York), Steven Weinberg (Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin) and Lewis Wolpert (Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London).
That's an impressive list. Their complaint?
In the Editorial "Dealing with design", Nature claims that scientists have not dealt effectively with the threat to evolutionary biology posed by 'intelligent design' (ID) creationism. Rather than ignoring, dismissing or attacking ID, scientists should, the editors suggest, learn how religious people can come to terms with science, and teach these methods of accommodation in the classroom. The goal of science education should thus be "to point to options other than ID for reconciling science and belief". In this way, students' faith will not be challenged by scientific truth, and evolution will triumph.
This suggestion is misguided: the science classroom is the wrong place to teach students how to reconcile science and religion. For one thing, many scientists deem such a reconciliation impossible because faith and science are two mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world. For such scientists, Nature apparently prescribes hypocrisy. The real business of science teachers is to teach science, not to help students shore up worldviews that crumble when they learn science.
My goodness. Nature was prescribing hyprocrisy?! What an illuminating accusation.
If you ask me, it was this statement that really annoyed these scientists –
All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion.
We know, for example, that this is not what Richard Dawkins believes ("the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest"). Thus, it would be hypocritical for Dawkins and others to teach this. For "many scientists," it is just plain impossile to reconcile faith and science. Effectively, they are arguing the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism must be kept out of the classroom. Why? Might it be possible that these leading scientists view the science classroom as a vehicle for advancing atheism?
May 19th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I must confess some sympathy for Dawkins et al. While it's true that the science class is no place to be promoting a philosophy of atheism, I don't think it's up to scientists to go out of their way to find some means of reconciling new discoveries with outmoded concepts and traditional views. Astronomers, for instance, shouldn't have to familiarize themselves with some basic arguments why outer space does not compete with Biblical references which (taken literally) would lead us to expect to find the region above the sky populated with angels and decorated with a sea of glass featuring a lofty throne inhabited by a resplendent deity. It's the theologians' job to undertake the task of reconciling scientific discoveries with the spiritual significance these discoveries imply in the context of past traditions. Let the scientists do the science and let the theologians do the theology.
Comment by Mark Nutter — May 19, 2005 @ 10:44 am
May 19th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Mark,
I would not be in favor of instructing any scientist or professor as to how they are to teach their class. The bigger issue is the tacit admission by many leading scientists that they view science/evolution as an expression of atheism. For them, it is impossible to reconcile faith and science. I thought the idea of science/evolution = atheism was a bogeyman concocted by people like Philip Johnson. As we can see, it is not. It is a view held by many leading scientists.
As for the classroom, would there be anything wrong with a science professor teaching the students the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? It would appear that those scientists who signed Coyne's letter would oppose such instruction.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2005 @ 11:17 am
May 19th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
"So the Wedge progresses, and getting a foothold in the academic world continues to be crucial to its strategey…." Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, 2004
Mike,
John Maddox who signed the letter, is the former editor-in-chief of Nature. He's basically going ballistic over how his successors handled the issue. This is highly unusual for a former editor to do this to his own journal. The participation of Maddox and the impressive list of 2 Nobel Laureates (good grief, James Watson!) and the world's top evos tells me how seriously the issue is to these people.
The growing popularity of ID, especially among college students, and especially among (gasp) university professors of biology, is blowing their minds.
Though they did not mention Eugenie Scott by name, in attacking Nature, they attacked the postion Eugenie Scott had laid out, which is what the editors adopted.
I received a letter last night from Eugenie Scott saying she is not opposed to us (IDEA, DI, and others) getting universities to offer courses on ID. Whoa!!! (She gave me permission to publish our correspondence, which I will do shortly in it's entirety. I find Eugenie to be actually a sweet person, not at all like Dawkins…..)
What has happened is a rift between the Richard Dawkins's circle and the moderates like Eugenie Scott and the editors of Nature.
When Brumfiel interviewed us, he was up front that Nature would not paint us in a glowing light, that he was interested about our motivations and objectives, not our scientific arguments. Given that, we nearly decided not to grant the interview, and not let him be privy to our activities. After some thought, I actually went somewhat against my boss's (Casey Luskin's) leanings and answered Brumfiels highly probing personal questions.
I fully believed doing so would result in a more favorable article, and it seemed to be the wise thing in retrospect. My goal was to get the poll we took a James Madison published. And I was actually shocked an how friendly the article turned out. I think invariably, when a reporter sees someone's freedom of speech being suppressed, there is always a little sympathy, and actually at George Mason, there are several science professors keeping quiet!
It surely must be irritating to Richard Dawkins and friends that perhaps 75% of college students are interested in ID, including biology majors! More irritating even that the editors of Nature are encouraging science professors to help preserve student's religious beliefs. LOL!
(After all, in Dawkins view, that's as bad as child molestation. )
The editors of Nature I believe are compassionate to students with religious views as many professors generally are. We saw that repeatedly in the article, where professors said they felt it wasn't their place to step on a students personal beliefs, and freedom of religion is still a cherished right in the US.
What will happen is that ID's advance into the colleges will be resisted only by logistical and institutional barriers, and not the law (as it is in public schools). They know it. We intend to persuade administrators that it is in their school's best interest to offer ID courses. I would bet in 3 years we'll have 10 universities offering these courses regularly. If ID courses are shown to be poplular, ID will spread like wild fire given the demographics of the population and the Design Revolution as the DI has envisioned may actually come to pass.
"the Wedge's workers have been carving out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education, cultivating cells of followers — students as well as (primarily nonbiology) faculty — on campus after campus….They have enough financial backing and self-righteous zeal to outlast what little effectively organized oppostion to them presently exists, especially in higher education." — Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, 2004
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 19, 2005 @ 9:58 pm
May 19th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Hi Salvador,
The more I think about it, the more extreme the Coyne et al. letter is. The editors from one of the leading science journals in the world offer a very modest "compromise" solution:
That merely sounds like a call to educate students about the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. And how did these leading scientists respond to such a mild solution? Essentially, they just gave Nature the middle finger. It's pure extremism.
Many critics decry the existence of the ID Movement/The Wedge. Yet they continually seem oblivious to the fact that it's the attitude in the Coyne et al. letter that fuels The Wedge.
As for Eugenie Scott, yes, when I read the Nature article, I must say that my respect for her went up quite a bit. I think she is really sincere and finds herself between a rock and a hard place.
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2005 @ 11:37 pm
May 20th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Here is a link to my correspondence wth Eugenie Scott. It is in stark contrast to the letters exchanged between the scientists and Nature
http://smartaxes.com/docs/id_in_universities.htm
I'm with you, Mike, my opinion of Eugenie went substantially up after seeing her comments in Nature.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 20, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
May 21st, 2005 at 1:19 am
[...] ion wars, there is a new ID friendly website out called Telic Thoughts. Looks interesting. A recent post highlights the real agenda of Darwinists, which is atheism. Theistic evolutionists should ke [...]
Pingback by MDV Outlook Phillip Johnson and Evolution’s Demise — May 21, 2005 @ 1:19 am
May 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I used to think Intelligent Design was intended to be an alternative to evolution (not just an alternative to Darwinian evolution). But three articles I've read lately seem to indicate that ID is basically theistic evolution. It began with Michael Behe's article in the New York Times on 2-7-05. Only the abstract is available online now, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70713FD355F0C748CDDAB0894DD404482 but it still has the sentence where Behe says "intelligent design proponents do not doubt that evolution occurred."
Then there were the two articles in the recent Nature (at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341053a.html
The first says, ". . . Cordova tells his attentive audience as he outlines the case for intelligent design. Broadly speaking, he says, the concept is that a divine hand has shaped the course of evolution." The second says "The concept, which endeavours to show God's hand shaping the course of evolution . . ."
Behe is an ID advocate, while in the last two articles, one is the writer's interpretation of what you said, and the other is the opinion of a non-ID person..
I'm beginning to realize that different people define theistic evolution differently, but I don't' want to get sidetracked on that right now.
I'm basically wondering whether you were accurately represented in the Nature article. Do you believe that "a divine hand has shaped the course of evolution?" And is that a central teaching of the ID movement? I've always known that ID welcomed theistic evolutionists, but this seems to be affirming that ID is at its heart a theistic evolutionary theory, in the sense I've always thought of theistic evolution "“ evolution happened and God was involved in some way.
Can you help me out?
Comment by Marj — May 25, 2005 @ 12:50 pm
May 25th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Hi Marj,
ID is an overall viewpoint, compatible with both common descent and its denial. See my post here for more details.
Comment by Krauze — May 25, 2005 @ 7:52 pm
May 26th, 2005 at 11:16 am
To Krauze,
Okay, I read your linked post. But I must admit it didn't help a whole lot. If you noticed, in my original post I acknowledged that "I've always known that ID welcomed theistic evolutionists." It appears to me that when ID'ers such as Cordova and Behe talk about ID as "a concept which says that a divine hand shaped evolution," or "Intelligent Design proponents do not doubt that evolution occurred," they really should have said "some ID proponents accept evolution." In other words, evolutionists are accepted in the "big tent" but evolution is not a central concept of ID. Would you agree with that?
Frankly, I don't really see where that helps Creationists a whole lot. It seems like it's giving up too much to get too little. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I work with Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe (www.reasons.org). And frankly, I vastly prefer the approach that he and Fuz Rana use. Their approach is one that accepts direct creation by God as outlined in the Bible (Genesis and the other creation accounts such as Job 38, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8 and others), and also accepts the evidence from the sciences of astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc. However, they effectively point out that macroevolution did not occur — there's no mechanism, there's not enough time, and many other problems that I won't go into here. Checking out our Web site will provide that info.
It puzzles me why direct Creationists are so willing to be lumped in with evolutionists. If ID is really so broad as to be compatible with both common descent and its denial, then it seems to me that it's too broad. It's like saying that it's both A and non-A. That seems to me to be more contradictory than compatible.
Comment by Marj — May 26, 2005 @ 11:16 am
May 26th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Marj,
ID merely entails the attempt to detect intelligent design. The designer could be supernatural or natural. The design may be embedded within evolution or exist in place of evolution. Since there is no Theory of Intelligent Design, the various options cannot be ruled out. Yet. ID is simply in the very early stages of trying to flesh out an investigative approach.
Comment by MikeGene — May 26, 2005 @ 1:40 pm