Red faces and angry glances. Shouting and bulging veins all around. Stares that would bore a hole in most any wall. Condescending attacks on individual people rather than concrete responses to opposing arguments. Conspiracy theorists’ cries against any who contradict them. Sounds more like oppression and stifling of discovery than an open-university campus. So much for the “free marketplace of ideas,” eh?
The events take place throughout campus, from lectures to roundtable discussions to a very controversial guest. The table is set for those who promote a specific worldview and a specific faith to make themselves known. The perceived “scientific” community rejoices, belittling and mocking any who oppose them. However, within these high “academic” communities grow whispers of dissension. The mathematicians crunch their numbers, churning out probabilities of origins. The biochemists continue to unlock and reveal an entire other mini-universe within the cell, with highly specified machinery and complexity beyond belief. Even biologists note the gaping hole the fossil record shows – and yet we still cling to the man who many think made possible the “intellectually-fulfilled atheist”? We venerate and value Charles Darwin more highly than most any other scientist, ignoring the discoveries and theories of countless theists throughout history.
The Darwin Day events and invitation of rabid evolutionary anti-theist Richard Dawkins only serve to demonstrate the extent to which one view predominates in science. Ironically, this week marks the controversial defeat of an Oklahoma Senate bill that would legislate the validity of teaching both strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. The bill was narrowly defeated in a committee, but reflects an increasingly recognized opposition to modern evolutionary theory. The work of Ben Stein in his investigative documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” adds popularity and momentum as well as evidence for opposition to naturalistic evolution in the battle which rages among scientists. No professor without tenure (and some even with) is above the Darwinist police, no matter the value of their contributions or the quality of their research.
Blindly, but faithfully, following an uncertain theory just because it has been widely accepted makes us no better than those who asserted throughout the Middle Ages that the earth was the center of the universe. But therein lies the problem. Because the definition of the term “science” has been commandeered and changed by the so-called intellectual establishment, it no longer is viable to question or doubt natural selection and random mutation as the only “true” explanation for origins. When you redefine science as Darwinism, of course you’ll reject any evidence which comes in opposition to it.
The welcoming of Dawkins to OU on March 6 is approaching with great fanfare, as the former Oxford biologist will herald the semester’s Darwin celebration events. But what has made Dawkins popular is his foray into the philosophical realm in books such as “The God Delusion”, in which he purports the seeming impossibility of the supernatural realm. His public disdain for religious belief, particularly expressed in attacks on Christianity, has made Dawkins a polemic figure.
However, intellectual thought has not been without question for his philosophical motives. Noted philosopher and historian of science Michael Ruse, known for his respected work in the history and philosophy of science, will be another guest speaker for the OU Darwin 2009 Project. Ruse, who will give a public lecture on Feb. 26 at the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, comments in his review of “The God Delusion” that “Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science)…So long as his understanding of Christianity remains at a sophomoric level, Dawkins does not deserve full attention.”
Angry language and condescension will bring no clarity or resolution to the problem. Bringing Dawkins in does nothing but increase the level of tension between naturalism advocates and those who purport other theories of origins.
So what is to be done about this? First, I would strongly suggest, even if you fully agree with Dawkins about evolutionary biology, that you acquire knowledge of the opposing arguments to evolutionary theory.
The first opportunity for such knowledge is tonight in the way of two academics from the Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle that publishes and funds intelligent design research. Researcher Dr. John West and lawyer Casey Luskin will present on the troubling topic raised by Ben Stein – academic freedom. Second, Ruse will debate design theorist William Dembski on Feb. 27 in the Paul F. Sharp Concert Hall in the Catlett School of Music. Dembski controversially spoke at OU in the fall of 2007. Come hear rational conversation and discussion rather than personal attacks and scare tactics. Let’s talk about what science is and means, in a historical and a present sense. The soft-spoken naturalist and biologist Charles Darwin might have even calmly discussed it himself.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
Let me recommend this review of Dawkins' The God Delusion to anyone, especially if you're considering going to hear Dawkins live and in person like I am.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/d...
Please do not speak for Charles Darwin. You have never met the man and neither do you share his views or intentions. Oh and yeah, Darwinism and science are two different things. So to assume that all of science is Darwinism is a foolish belief. And once again, Dembski is not here for the Darwin celebrations. He is here to try to impose his view on OU students!!!
May I shake your hand, sir? This is a very well written article that hits the nail right on the head.
I applaud Ben Stein and other scientists of his character who will help remove the rusted stop which has been placed by the Darwinists in the bottle of free public and scientific debate at institutions of higher learning. It is imperative not only for the sake of practicing better science that we open up free intellectual discussions on "how we got here" in the classroom, but also for our progression as a human society as we strive to gain a better understanding of ourselves and of the universe in which we live.
"Education is a kind of continuing dialogue, and a dialogue assumes, in the nature of the case, different points of view." - Robert Hutchins (1899-1977)
"We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves." - St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
How about we drop the alternative theories to evolution that aren't scientific theories? Oh whoops, that just leaves evolution! Sad face.
I find it interesting that Mr. Malone seems to think that only the "scientific" community needs to keep an open mind on Darwinian debates. The religious community is just as entrenched in their ideals as anyone in the scientific community. The difference between the two is the scientific community has proof of their theories.
"Blindly, but faithfully, following an uncertain theory just because it has been widely accepted makes us no better than those who asserted throughout the Middle Ages that the earth was the center of the universe." This theory is no more 'uncertain' than the theory of gravity. All theories in science (biology, geology, astronomy, physics, etc.) are tested constantly. The theory of evolution and the mechanism through which it operates, natural selection, is continually being tested (just as gravity is tested every day you wake up and find you are not floating above your bed) Therefore, evolution is not any more controversial within the scientific community than gravity is. Should scientific studies show that the theory of evolution is not sound (which is not currently the case), the research scientists would be the first to begin the process of identifying an alternate theory. The conflict lies with those individuals who have trouble finding a balance between their theologic beliefs and science.
It's worth noting that most of these doubters have absolutely no background in biology, or for that matter, in hard science. I bet the author of this column, an English major, hasn't taken a single course in biology since High School. Dr. John West from the Discovery Institute who's scheduled to give a speech tonight against Evolution has doctorate in - you guessed it- not in biology but Government (Bachelor in Communication), from the world-renowned Claremont Graduate University. The whole thing would be comical if not for its tragic implications for the future of science education in America.
Support Intelligent Design all you want, but please don't act as if you know anything about science, because this article shows that you clearly don't. Both the people who are pro-evolution and those who are pro-ID say that they just want an academic discussion of the evidence. But you said this, however:
"The table is set for those who promote a specific worldview and a specific faith to make themselves known."
There is no room for faith in science. If science needed faith, it would be religion, not science. And you also clearly have no understanding of Intelligent Design either, for you attributed to their think tank a research program, which they have none, because ID makes no predictions other than "everything would look exactly as it looks because an intelligent dude made it that way." Irreducible complexity is a failed attempt at scientific justification, and Dembski's information theory "problems" with evolution have been shown to be misguided. The Intelligent Design advocates are political actors, trying to create a controversy rather than getting their "science" published. They're going about it much the same way you are. By spreading ignorance and trying to create the false impression that evolution is somehow threatened by ID, which it is not in the least.
For someone who clearly doesn't understand science, nor Intelligent Design (notice how the latter doesn't belong to the former), it doesn't make any sense to try to write about both.
If Intelligent Design or the Discovery Institute had viable evidence on their side, why did they not present a sound argument in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case? Why were their arguments unable to convince a judge appointed by G. W. Bush?
You say "open mind," but I hear "accept my side without questioning it."
Biased article. Evolution is a theory just like gravity is. Period. Dawkins is not rabid. Rabid hints at random and without purpose. Please choose your "yellow" adjectives more wisely. I don't have a problem with ID as long as you teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well. His noodliness demands it. Also, he has millions of followers.
rAMEN.
Anyone who watched "Expelled" would see that Richard Dawkins is far from rabid. Mr. Stein had a very interesting interview and Dawkins even admitted an intelligent designer was possible. Any real scientists would leave this possibility open since it can't be disproved. However, Dawkins expressed his doubt about any particular faith being correct about the designer, as most scientists probably would due to a stunning lack of scientific evidence. Those who support ID need to realize the designer could be anything, and it lens zero credence to their particular faith.
In this day and age and location, it is impossible not to have heard about creationism. I've never been beat over the head with evolution theory. I'm pretty banged up by creationists on a regular basis. God gave us the internet, satellite t.v., all those things Christians railed against as satanic. Now they have proliferated those venues. We know about creation theory. Unlike science, it doesn't seem to be evolving much. And I'm not talking about tacky Jesus t-shirts and bumper stickers that seek to emulate and make fun of every marketing campaign out there. I'm talking about really saying anything new and noteworthy. Creationism is a pretty stale arguement, despite the tons and tons of pop-psychology/pop-political books written about it by fame-mongers every year.
If creationists lived a life more by example, and less by intrusion and histrionics, people might look up from the microscope with a kinder disposition....
If creationists have anything new to say, this is a good year to say it. So far, I'm still waiting,
-Bubba
p.s. I'm a "Tornado Christian", if a twister is coming, I'm going to remind the Lord I was saved and baptised. Then I'm going to enjoy the weather....
This article is so full of misguided hyperbole, that it's painful to think a graduate student such as yourself could get things so very dead wrong. You write as though it's not a chip on your shoulder, but something closer to the size left by a small asteroid. I don't have the time or the energy to take your article point by point in entirety, but there is real irony in your calling for 'open minds': a virtue you don't appear to possess.
You cite condescension among educational elites, yet you offer no case or example. You act as though there's something scientific about the theory of intelligent design, showcasing an apparent ignorance that the theory, and I use that term loosely, is the re-branding of creationism. Of course creationism is basically a literal belief in genesis, but if you could somehow explain how this theory offers anything other than stagnation, how its study might lend some aid to medical research or even how it could be tested, then you might find some respect.
You call the theory of evolution uncertain, and its followers blind but faithful. What is certain? Not a lot in this world, but there is a large amount of evidence that would tend to support it. There can be no change in ID, no new revelations, and no great breakthroughs because it's based on an absolute certainty that goes back much, much farther than any of the popular monotheistic religions of today.
Your cries to leave the anger and condescension at home would go a bit father if you had managed to leave them out of your article. I would invite you in the future, being that you're so opinionated on the matter, to make a case for intelligent design using actual logic.
>
> Therefore, evolution is not any more controversial within
> the scientific community than gravity is.
>
There is no such thing as "the theory of gravity," and to compare "gravity" with the theory of evolution is to compare a fact that can be observed with a theory proposed to explain something that cannot be observed.
By the way, we should remember that people thought heavier objects fell faster than light ones for 2,000 years...
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.