The problem with sidelining all talk of the possibility of an intelligent designer to philosophy classes is that materialism is also a faith-based philosophy which cannot be proven by science, and yet it reigns nearly unchallenged in science classrooms.
As a Biblical literalist I have no objection whatsoever to hard science of any kind -- science meaning observable data and reproducible results. When, however, I hear scientists loudly declaim that the only logical or "scientific" conclusion from the available data is that the universe evolved entirely randomly and by chance, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is anti-scientific, I believe they have overstepped the bounds of science and leaped to a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence.
If scientists like Simpson and Dawkins are allowed to dogmatically proclaim that science proves there is no God and no need for one, and still be respected as scientists and their writings upheld as examples of good science, why are scientists who argue there is evidence for intelligent design marginalized and dismissed as credulous idiots?
I'm not talking about Professor Hayseed who obtained his degree by correspondence and now runs the Bishop Ussher Skool of Creationary Scientificness, here. (I think we can all agree how ridiculous that kind of thing is, and it's why I don't put much stock in some of the "leading" Creationist writers.) I'm talking about legitimate biologists, microbiologists, geneticists, chemistry professors and pure mathematicians who obtained their degrees through well-known and respected institutions, and have even gone on to teach at such institutions -- albeit with the understanding that they not talk about their "religious" beliefs in the classroom.
If my husband's Evolution professor at university had the freedom to mock the idea of special creation (and specifically target those students who believed in it), why shouldn't equally well-educated professors who hold a different view of the evidence be allowed to present their side of the argument in an academic setting? Don't they have just as much right to say, and write, that in their view much scientific evidence points to an intelligent Designer of some sort, rather than just a long series of incredibly fortunate accidents?
In my view, the only truly fair way to settle the debate is either to present both views (or at least admit that both views exist and may be held intelligently) or else to present nothing but raw data and leave students to draw their own conclusions from it regarding the possible origins of life and the existence or non-existence of a Creator. From what I understand of the Wedge strategy (and it's no secret -- Phillip Johnson has laid it out in detail in an openly published book which I actually own a copy of, so the idea that this comes from a "leaked document" is mystifying to me), the former is what Wedge adherents have in mind. The strategy, at least in its pure form, isn't aimed at suppressing science -- only in encouraging the public to realize that materialism is not the only "scientific" philosophy, and that science and faith are by no means enemies.
There is also a sizeable gap between ID advocates and old-skool young-earth Fundamentalist Christian Creationists, which very few people seem to recognize. In fact I've been amazed at the smear campaign going on against ID, particularly online, which would lead one to think that it's nothing but Gish and Morris with new haircuts, or else a bunch of embarrassed Christians hiding behind the idea of an Unknown Intelligent Designer to conceal the fact that they really believe in that unfashionable Jehovah guy. Neither is the case, and the sheer pettiness of the arguments I've seen made against ID and its advocates astonishes me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-22 04:29 pm (UTC)As a Biblical literalist I have no objection whatsoever to hard science of any kind -- science meaning observable data and reproducible results. When, however, I hear scientists loudly declaim that the only logical or "scientific" conclusion from the available data is that the universe evolved entirely randomly and by chance, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is anti-scientific, I believe they have overstepped the bounds of science and leaped to a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence.
If scientists like Simpson and Dawkins are allowed to dogmatically proclaim that science proves there is no God and no need for one, and still be respected as scientists and their writings upheld as examples of good science, why are scientists who argue there is evidence for intelligent design marginalized and dismissed as credulous idiots?
I'm not talking about Professor Hayseed who obtained his degree by correspondence and now runs the Bishop Ussher Skool of Creationary Scientificness, here. (I think we can all agree how ridiculous that kind of thing is, and it's why I don't put much stock in some of the "leading" Creationist writers.) I'm talking about legitimate biologists, microbiologists, geneticists, chemistry professors and pure mathematicians who obtained their degrees through well-known and respected institutions, and have even gone on to teach at such institutions -- albeit with the understanding that they not talk about their "religious" beliefs in the classroom.
If my husband's Evolution professor at university had the freedom to mock the idea of special creation (and specifically target those students who believed in it), why shouldn't equally well-educated professors who hold a different view of the evidence be allowed to present their side of the argument in an academic setting? Don't they have just as much right to say, and write, that in their view much scientific evidence points to an intelligent Designer of some sort, rather than just a long series of incredibly fortunate accidents?
In my view, the only truly fair way to settle the debate is either to present both views (or at least admit that both views exist and may be held intelligently) or else to present nothing but raw data and leave students to draw their own conclusions from it regarding the possible origins of life and the existence or non-existence of a Creator. From what I understand of the Wedge strategy (and it's no secret -- Phillip Johnson has laid it out in detail in an openly published book which I actually own a copy of, so the idea that this comes from a "leaked document" is mystifying to me), the former is what Wedge adherents have in mind. The strategy, at least in its pure form, isn't aimed at suppressing science -- only in encouraging the public to realize that materialism is not the only "scientific" philosophy, and that science and faith are by no means enemies.
There is also a sizeable gap between ID advocates and old-skool young-earth Fundamentalist Christian Creationists, which very few people seem to recognize. In fact I've been amazed at the smear campaign going on against ID, particularly online, which would lead one to think that it's nothing but Gish and Morris with new haircuts, or else a bunch of embarrassed Christians hiding behind the idea of an Unknown Intelligent Designer to conceal the fact that they really believe in that unfashionable Jehovah guy. Neither is the case, and the sheer pettiness of the arguments I've seen made against ID and its advocates astonishes me.