Taking Your Baggage to the Streets
by MikeGeneHunter R. Rawlings III, Interim President of Cornell University has weighed in on an "urgent matter" "“ the ID debate. He warns, "The issue in question is the challenge to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as "intelligent design." This controversy raises profound questions about the nature of public discourse and what we teach in universities, and it has a profound effect on public policy."
Yet Rawlings is concerned about something more. He claims, "Even here at Cornell, there are sharp divisions on the issue." But pay close attention to the nature of this sharp division:
Each year in his large course on evolution for non-majors, Will Provine, the C. A. Alexander Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, asks his students a set of questions about evolution. The exact percentages vary a bit from year to year, but typically about half the students come out in favor of some sort of "purpose" informing the process through which life develops and half come out on the side of mechanistic evolution.
Did you catch that? Rawlings starts with a concern about religious opposition to evolution that quickly becomes a concern about students daring to think that evolution may be "informed" by some sort of "purpose." Even a modest expression of teleological thinking among non-majors is cause for concern. Oh my.
Rawlings complains about the country being so polarized and, to his great credit, admits Academia has a share of the blame for this state of affairs:
And if we are honest, we have to admit that many of us in universities have contributed to the polarization that afflicts the country as a whole. President Emeritus Frank Rhodes, writing in 1982 at the height of the "creationism" debates, noted that "both fundamentalist advocates and some popular scientists claim an extension of their area of authority which is logically illegitimate. The fundamentalists offer an old doctrine of scriptural infallibility, improperly disguised as science; the scientists offer an old doctrine of materialism, equally improperly disguised as science"¦. Each, in its increasingly intemperate pronouncements, is guilty of intellectual imperialism."
Today, as Glenn Altschuler, Cornell's Litwin Professor of American Studies, has noted, we continue to have scientific imperialists who believe that only science can be looked to for answers to all answerable questions and that those areas where science cannot provide answers are unimportant. And we have religious imperialists who assert that all questions are appropriately directed to faith-based sources for answers.
Yet Rawlings seems completely unaware that he has just fueled further polarization by declaring "Intelligent Design is a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea" and "Intelligent Design is a subjective concept. It is, at its core, a religious belief." That the Interim President of Cornell University would peddle stereotypes is not a way to get more people to listen to his point of view.
Apart from the fact that Hunter R. Rawlings III is just another person whose mind hears "religion" when "Intelligent Design" is spoken or written, what else can we glean from his speech?
Rawlings encourages his faculty to become more involved in the battle against "religiously-based opposition to evolution":
I want to suggest that universities like Cornell can make a valuable contribution to the nation's cultural and intellectual discourse. With a breadth of expertise that embraces the humanities and the social sciences as well as science and technology, we need to be engaging issues like evolution and intelligent design both internally, in the classroom, in the residential houses, and in campus-wide debates, and also externally by making our voices heard in the spheres of public policy and politics.
and
We have at Cornell great intellectual resources to deal with the current attacks on science and reason. We also have a strong tradition of faculty members using their expertise to comment on public policy, as the late Hans Bethe did as an advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, and as Kurt Gottfried is still doing as the co-founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I believe that now, as we proceed with our investments in scientific inquiry, we should also be addressing the cultural issues that the invasion of science by intelligent design embodies. This is an issue that should engage not simply our science faculty, like Will Provine, but, in particular, our social scientists and humanists.
This is above all a cultural issue, not a scientific one. The controversy is about the tensions between science and belief, reason and faith, public policy and private religiosity.
and
Consistent with Cornell's land grant mission, I ask as well that humanists, social scientists, and scientists venture outside the campus to help the American public sort through these complex issues. I ask them to help a wide audience understand what kinds of theories, arguments, and conclusions deserve a place in the academy "“ and why it isn't always a good idea to "teach the controversies." When professors tend only to their own disciplinary gardens, public discourse is undernourished.
You get the picture.
Yet if sorting through these complex issues means more explanations that ID is "religious at its core," Rawlings' vision of outreach is in for tough sledding. If the Cornell scholars are to step out of the Ivory Towers and into the ghetto to proclaim "what kinds of theories, arguments, and conclusions deserve a place in the academy," they come to the streets carrying baggage. Consider two items.
1. Rawlings speaks in glowing terms of Cornell's first president - Andrew Dickson White:
White made the defense of science, including evolution, the center of his scholarly attention during and after his presidency. It figured prominently in the history courses he managed to teach at Cornell while president. It figured in the lectures he was invited to give, as a leading college president, around the country. And it formed the basis of his magnum opus, a two-volume work entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
Yet one could easily argue that it was this magnum opus that has contributed a lion's share to the polarization that Rawlings complains about. As David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers argued:
No work-not even John William Draper's best- selling History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874)-has done more than White's to instill in the public mind a sense of the adversarial relationship between science and religion. His Warfare remains in print to the present day, having appeared also in German, French, Italian, Swedish, and Japanese translations. His military rhetoric has captured the imagination of generations of readers, and his copious references, still impressive, have given his work the appearance of sound scholarship, bedazzling even twentieth-century historians who should know better.
Lindberg and Numbers also argue:
Such judgments, however appealing they may be to foes of "scientific creationism" and other contemporary threats to established science, fly in the face of mounting evidence that White read the past through battle-scarred glasses, and that he and his imitators have distorted history to serve ideological ends of their own. Although it is not difficult to find instances of conflict and controversy in the annals of Christianity and science, recent scholarship has shown that the warfare metaphor to be neither useful or tenable in describing the relationship between science and religion.
Thus, when Rawlings admits "many of us in universities have contributed to the polarization that afflicts the country as a whole," his faculty may underestimate the degree to which this issue may rise to the surface.
2. Given that Cornell's first president did much to "instill in the public mind a sense of the adversarial relationship between science and religion," it doesn't help to have its current Interim President mentioning Cornell's Will Provine in two places. Provine, after all, is the guy who teaches the public that "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." And much more.
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Wow.
I'll say that again: Wow.
In a speech attempting to dispell the polarization of the debate, Rawlings speaks approvingly of White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, which not only paints the relationship between Christians and science as one of stark conflict, but is also the historical equivalent of The Bell Curve.
Colin A. Russel, a professor emeritus in the history of science, refers to Warfare, as well as its companion piece, John Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, as "polemical tracts". He continues:
Comment by Krauze — October 23, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Excellent post! It is nice to see people acknowledge the hypocritical double standard of some of academia's so-called "elite".
Comment by Qualiatative — October 23, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:28 pm
In other words, about half the students still have erronious understanding of evolution. Doesn't that give the lie to those who say evolution has no conflict with religion?
Oh, wait, we have religious people who claim to adhere to that possibility, such as Ken Miller.
However, it is a logical absurdity.
Comment by onething — October 23, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In some Christian circles a common worry among parents is that their kids go off to college or university, be overwhelmed by all the new ideas and lack of a familiar network, and give up Christianity. Considering that talk of "purpose informing development" is characteristic for theistic evolutionism, such parents will probably read Rawlings as saying that Cornell University needs to be better at turning their students away from Christianity.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Provine teaches a class on evolution and creation, the success of which he measures as "number of students converted to atheism". Inspired by the Gonzalez case, does this mean that turning students into atheists is what Cornell University does?
Comment by Krauze — October 23, 2005 @ 8:38 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Is he wrong about the religious connections of intelligent design? Gee, a summary publication laying out the theory of intelligent design, discussin the laboratory results obtained from the many experiments would probably persuade him differently.
Where would we find that publication to get to Cornell's library?
Comment by edarrell — October 23, 2005 @ 11:11 pm
October 24th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Before you could have such a book, you'd have to have a theory of intelligent design (one that was more than "It looks designed to me") and you'd have to have some laboratory results to report on. As it is, ID Critics keep asking ID Theorists what their theory is and get blank looks for a response. So we ask what kind of experiments have been done and get more blank looks. So we ask what kind of experiments SHOULD be done and get even more blank looks.
The book you describe would go a long way towards making ID a scientific theory, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it if I were you.
Comment by DataDoc — October 24, 2005 @ 7:40 am
October 24th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
The IDEA chapter at Cornell expresses it's view:
Cornell IDEA Chapter Reacts to Rawlings
Also of note, one faculty member, a tenured biologist, John Sanford, at Cornell testified at the Kansas hearings. It's distressing that a University President is publicly taking a stand against the views of his own faculty members and students.
John Sanford, ID Biologist at Cornell
Yeah, it just occured to me the witch hunt list is growing:
R. Lumsden, Tulane
D. Kenyon, SFU
W. Dembski, Baylor
N. Bryson, MUW
C. Crocker GMU
G. Gonzalez ISU
S. Minnich UI
J. Sanford Cornell
F. Beckwith Baylor
W. Bradley Baylor
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 24, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
October 24th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Mr. Cordova,
Did J. Sanford testify in Kansas by outlining a scientific hypothesis that could form a theory of intelligent design, were it confirmed? Did he offer any experimental results to back his views? Did he state up front that he holds a religious view of nature unsupported by science?
Why should we consider it a "witch hunt" when the man's boss asks him to stick to the high academic standards he promised to stick to when he signed his contract with Cornell? I'd call that accountability, coupled with good academics.
Why shouldn't an IDist be required to fulfill a contractual obligation, and do so exercising high ethical standards along the way?
Comment by edarrell — October 24, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
He might do well to ask Cornell Associate Professor John Sanford what should be taught.
John Sanford
Sanford's riveting Testimony can be found at Talk Origins:
John Sanford's Testimony
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 25, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
What is a little amusing is it appears Rawlings will have to explain how YEC ended up remainig a professor of biology at his school. Ooops! Oh, the damage done to those poor Cornell students. Hehehe!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 25, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
So Sanford's a Christian. What about the question I asked, Sal? Was he honest in Kansas or not?
Comment by edarrell — October 25, 2005 @ 6:36 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
My blog raises three points of significance.
1. Rawlings easily and quickly slips from complaining about opposition to evolution to complaining about students who think evolution might be informed by purpose.
2. While complaining about polarization, Rawlings speaks approvingly of White. White shares a large chunk of responsibility in perpetuating the idea that science and religion are enemies.
3. Rawlings cites Provine two times. Provine argues that acceptance of evolution entails acceptance of atheism.
Two ID critics reply "“ Edarrel and DataDoc.
Neither one responds to any of these points. Instead, both try to change the topic with some standard talking points.
Comment by MikeGene — October 25, 2005 @ 9:23 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
I have to wonder if he realizes that one of his own professors participated in the Kansas hearings advocating the teaching of the controversy. He's carrying so much baggage that somewhere he must think all the science faculty members at his prestigious school can't possibly dissent from Darwinism. What's Rawlings going to recommend, a reprimand for Sanford for going against the pro-Darwin program! What wil he do about the science faculty member who is the IDEA advisor?
Rawlings speech will build few bridges, in fact, it does a good job of burning a few of them. The IDEA chapter there is symbolic of many student attitudes. Did the reaction of the IDEA chapter their indicate the student body has become less polarized as a result????
The baggage is causing a lot of blindness. It is the same stereo type of "stupid, educated, ignorant, wicked". I posit, if one treats Cornell students and faculty that way, one has basically declared war on a sizable portion of the student body. It's a great way to instill a permanent contempt toward the very cause he's promoting.
Look at the words of one of the students reacting to Rawlings Baggage:
I'd say Rawlings did a good job of diffusing the polarization (NOT)!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 25, 2005 @ 10:32 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 1:26 am
Sal,
Thanks for the link. Two very good scientists, doing research, publishing, getting patents, both start out accepting evolution and becoming IDists. Mr. DeSilvestro's testimony was also good. I found this interesting:
Comment by onething — October 26, 2005 @ 1:26 am
October 26th, 2005 at 9:31 am
An interesting tidbit from Chris Mooney: Rawlings isn't a scientist - he's a classicist! Now, I don't think this should influence the evaluation of his ideas, but just imagine the reaction from ID critics if he had supported intelligent design in his speech!
Comment by Krauze — October 26, 2005 @ 9:31 am
October 26th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
MikeGene notes:
1.Rawlings easily and quickly slips from complaining about opposition to evolution to complaining about students who think evolution might be informed by purpose.
2.While complaining about polarization, Rawlings speaks approvingly of White. White shares a large chunk of responsibility in perpetuating the idea that science and religion are enemies.
3.Rawlings cites Provine two times. Provine argues that acceptance of evolution entails acceptance of atheism.
This is all really irrelevant because we are assured that religion, theism, deism, NDE and blindwatchmakers all hang out together. Only the malcontents stir up the otherwise peaceful coexistence.
Also the words of the few in no way impart the intent of the whole. IOW the personal views of a few do not reflect the over-all religious-neutrality of the anti-ID position.
And yes Krauze, seeing that ID doesn't merit scientific status why waste a scientist to refute it?
(it's called sarcasm)
Comment by Joe G — October 26, 2005 @ 10:27 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Sure. And it looks like he lapped it up.
I like to focus on this type of stuff because there is a much larger lesson if you stand back from it all. If you the reader agree with the points I made in the original blog, ask yourself how it is that the president of such a leading university could be so blind. Ask yourself why it is that not one critic has raised the points I raised. Remember the critics are heavily invested in this notion that they are being objective and simply following the evidence and good arguments wherever they lead. If that's not the case, one can hide it behind techno-talk. But if you don't see such things in regular old talk, do you think it magically re-appears when the critic reverts to techno-talk?
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
And why shouldn't a classicist — a fellow who understands the power of ideas, both correct and incorrect — weigh in on a matter involving one of the great ideas of western civilization? If you watch closely, you'll see that my criticisms are not aimed at the credentials of the speaker, but at what the speaker claims.
My criticisms of Angus Campbell, for example, involve the fact that his "rhetorical analysis" begs the question of whether there is science in ID (I use "beg the question" in its meaning in rhetoric). Plus, he fails to analyze whether claims are factual — and that is one of the key points of analysis of rhetorical criticism.
Rawlings' complaint is that students are ill-informed, or mal-informed. That's not a complaint about the students, but instead is a complaint about the decline of standards of education. Regret you misunderstood his argument.
Rawlings didn't call for an end to polarization. He called for a return to high standards. Regret you missed that. He's defending high standards, you're questioning them. I regret you missed that, too — it makes it more difficult to correct error when one does not note it for whatever reason.
Rawlings doesn't call for acceptance of atheism, he doesn't cite Provine on that point because it's rather irrelevant in context (and arguable). You know, the Soviet Constitution used to defend freedom of speech. Soviet communism was a brutal, failed experiment — but their paper endorsement of freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech is not a good thing.
Kids in college will get loads of intelligent design, especially at Cornell, if they take the course in the intellectual traditions of the west. Repeated studies show that kids do not get a good foundation in evolution anywhere.
Let's go for high academics and greater learning, which is likely to produce less polarization. Rawlings is right.
Comment by edarrell — October 29, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Hi Ed,
Is there any particular reason why you refuse to adress the questions raised by Mike?
Comment by Krauze — October 29, 2005 @ 3:37 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Then why is higher academics responsible for some of this polarization? Who may have shut your eyes during this part of his speech: "And if we are honest, we have to admit that many of us in universities have contributed to the polarization that afflicts the country as a whole." Are you willing to be honest, Edarell?
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Krauze.
Is there any particular reason that my direct addressing of the complaints of Mike Gene are dismissed by you as not directly addressing the complaints?
See my previous post, and the one Mike Gene made immediately previous to that. Perhaps you had not seen them when you posted.
Comment by edarrell — October 30, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Higher academics, tougher standards in learning, produces polarization in two ways: When there is competition between two valid ideas (see the fight between free press/fair trial advocates, for example), and when some parties simply fight better ideas. It's going to happen. I don't see Dr. Rawlings saying it won't happen.
What he calls for is teaching kids right from wrong. He calls for teaching the best we know.
You're going to complain when, in the course of teaching right from wrong, some professor fisks intelligent design (it'll take an hour, but probably not much longer).
Is it possible to avoid such polarization? How?
Abraham Lincoln once was challenged in his treatment of a Union army officer who clearly did not respect Lincoln. He was urged to fire the officer, and in justification the advisor quoted some Bible text that justified slaying one's enemies. "If I turn my enemy into a friend, have I not slain my enemy?" Lincoln responded.
If kids learn the facts first, they'll understand "the controversy." ID advocates won't like it, of course.
But in that learning process, polarization will be reduced.
That's all Rawlings calls for, the truth. Some will always stand against it. Polarization will never be eliminated completely.
Comment by edarrell — October 30, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 12:05 pm
edarrell:
If kids learn the facts first, they'll understand "the controversy." ID advocates won't like it, of course.
Actually that is what we want. However it is obvious that you and your ilk cannot allow that to happen
edarrell:
That's all Rawlings calls for, the truth. Some will always stand against it.
That's a joke, right? Again you and your ilk (Rawlings III included) are not interested in the truth, or reality.
Comment by Joe G — October 31, 2005 @ 12:05 pm