Imagine your a college professor with a website where you post information about your research. Should your website and information be protected only if the college agrees with it? Should controversial research be banned from the professor’s webpage? If you’re Robert Marks and you are working for Baylor and in the intelligent design related field of evolutionary informatics.
Here’s my question to supporters of Darwinian evolution – do you truly support freedom of speech or academic freedom? Should a professor have work pulled off the website because the research is controversial?
This is not a case where someone is out saying outlandish or racist things on the taxpayer’s dime. This is not a case where he is teaching intelligent design in a classroom setting where he shouldn’t be. He is simply doing research and hosting that information on the campus server – which is common place everywhere. Marks even agreed to put a disclaimer stating that his research was not in any way connected to a university position.
This is not about whether you agree with ID or not. This is about whether you accept academic freedom or not. I await the dancing and the avoiding of actual points, while fairies and monsters made of noodles will make prominent appearances.
Yep, more of the plentiful evidence of the orthodox hegemony of evolutionary priests. It's so obvious to those who are looking.
Free speech? Not for you because you're wrong.
Imagine your a college professor with a website where you post information about your research. Should your website and information be protected only if the college agrees with it? Should controversial research be banned from the professor's webpage?
Also, note Al Mohler’s blog today, Is the University Hostile to Christian Professors?.
Why do you suppose it is that Christians are so quick to complain about viewpoint discrimination when they're blocked from inserting their religious beliefs into the science curricula, but those same Christians are nowhere to be seen when incidents like this occur? http://northstatescience.blogspot.com/2007/09/ric…
Why do you suppose it is that Christians are so quick to complain about viewpoint discrimination when they're blocked from inserting their religious beliefs into the science curricula, but those same Christians are nowhere to be seen when incidents like this occur? http://northstatescience.blogspot.com/2007/09/ric…
I think you are mistaken in your analysis of the situation.
First of all, those arguing against the hegemony of evolutionary faith are asking that such philosophies of science as evolution be taught, not as biological fact, but as a theory of origins.
When a professor at a Christian college teaches any theory of origins, evolution OR creation, as scientific fact, they are out of line. You can easily teach and understand biology without evolution, and in fact, confusing operational science with origins conjecture is bad for science.
I have previously argued that, in the real world, evolution contributes nothing to medicine, evolutionary theory has hindered scientific research with it's presuppositions, and its phylogenetic trees are admittedly wrong and in total flux.
So to sum up, the first problem this professor has is that he is trying to teach evolution as fact in a biology classroom. He should be teaching it as philosophy of science, along with other theories of origins.
But secondly, since he is at a Christian college, he has certain theological and philosophical responsibilities – unlike a secular college, where you can teach from any framework you want (except a Christian one ;), in a Christian college, you are expected to teach from a biblical point of view.
And while there is leeway within that point of view, some colleges are more narrow than others. So while there are many Christians who believe in the Bible and evolution, they are in the minority.
Also, they often ignore the theological implications of evolutionary thougth, which very well may be at odds with Chrstianity.
You may have a point to some extent, but also, you have to admit that this professor may be asking for something he can't have in a Christian college – the right to teach whatever he thinks is true, theology be damned. Christian Universities don't hide their ideological boundaries.
But a public university, supposedly open to free inquiry, ought not have such boundaries.
So when secular universities practice viewpoint discrimination, it's wrong. When Christian schools do it, no problem. What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable.
Christians aren't interested in real academic fairness. The whole "teach the controversy" business uses the theme of academic fairness as a fig leaf to hide their real goal–control of the public school curricula.
As far as your views on the emptiness of evolution go, I can only say that in 2006 the National Academies of Science of 60 nations issued a joint statement that pretty much says the polar opposite from what you say about the subject. The question is: Why do you feel that those organizations–that represent some of the most brilliant minds on earth–are wrong about the basics of their chosen specialty, but evangelicals are right about the subject, especially when you consider that biology is not the specialty of most evangelicals?
Because the Bible tells me so…
So when secular universities practice viewpoint discrimination, it's wrong. When Christian schools do it, no problem.
To some extent, absolutely. For instance, when I send my kid to a Christian high school, I expect things to be taught from a Christian world view, rather than an Islamic, pagan, or atheist world view.
Does that mean they don't teach about other competing views in some classes? Of course not. But it does mean that I don't want some liberal Christian poser telling my kid it's ok to have sex before marriage in sex education class.
Christian colleges have some of the same limitations, though because they are a step higher in the learning ladder, they need more intellectual rigor.
The reason that Christians want this is not to limit their children's learning, but rather, because we believe that some methods of teaching, and some world views are inferior. A classical, Christian education and world view in such areas as philosophy, history, law, and government, lead to excellence that a secular view almost never will.
That includes the unbelieving, value neutral, anti-biblical secular philosophies that we think lead AWAY from truth and knowledge because they are wrong.
So yes, if I am paying tuition at a Christian university, I expect a xian world view – not that we fail to teach about evolution or communism, but that we equip our students to think biblically.
At a public university, I don't think that we should limit teaching to the secularist atheist view.
especially when you consider that biology is not the specialty of most evangelicals?
How do you know? I think you are talking out of your butt. I have a biochemistry degree. And you know Francis Collins, head of the human genome project? Evangelical (although, he does believe in evolution, but in a strange way – since we don't observe macroevolution happening, he believes that evolution has peaked or come to an equilibrium or something).
2006 the National Academies of Science of 60 nations issued a joint statement that pretty much says the polar opposite from what you say about the subject.
1. Argument from majority means nothing.
2. Evolution is one of the arenas in which I believe most people, esp. scientists, are caught in a Mass Delusion – because it fits an unbelieving world view. Evolution is really the flat-earth theory of our time.
3. Many scientific arenas are now decided more based on politics than science, including the areas of gender orientation, global warming, and evolution. The fact that "60 nations" said they believe shows even more that this body was making a political statement.
4. As a scientist, I have examined the evidences and arguments of evolutionary believers, and find them exceedingly wanting.
Seeker–
The problem with all this, of course, is that if you practice viewpoint discrimination yourself, it's the height of hypocricy to condemn others for doing the same thing you do. It shows that the real source of your outrage has nothing to do with the noble idea that viewpoint discimination is wrong and everything to do with frustration that Christian attempts to take over the public school science curricula have been blocked. "Teach the controversy"? You first.
Seeker, please. Be reasonable. To even remotely insinuate that most evangelicals are specialists in biology is just plain goofy. I come from an evangelical background, although I've completely shed any lingering beliefs in the supernatural many years ago. I can't think of a single evangelical–and I know quite a few–who would even know who Francis Collins is. But ask them who Pat Robertson is, or Billy Graham is? Yeah, they know those guys.
So you're a biologist and a YEC, and you allude to evolution as a mass delusion among scientists? That's a pretty bold statement. Explain why common HERV insertion identical locations in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees doesn't conclusively prove common ancestry of the two species.
Here's the problem I have with all this. You say things like "[a]s a scientist, I have examined the evidences and arguments of evolutionary believers, and find them exceedingly wanting". But what do you believe instead? You believe the Genesis account. You believe that the earth was created in six calendar days, and then the Almighty had to take a day off, because he was tired. You believe the first man was created when God blew into dirt. If 150 years of evidence over a multitude of scientific disciplines isn't enough to convince you of the validity of the mainstream scientific view, you must have some pretty high standards of evidence. So, describe the scientific case that convinced you that the first woman literally came from the rib of the first man.
Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with anybody holding such a belief, so long as they're honest about it. But to suggest that the scientific case for evolution is tantamount to belief in a flat earth is preposterous; after all, if you could really document that, then why weren't you asked to testify in the Kitzmiller trial? They could have used you; the judge's scathing decision has scuttled the ID movement.
Finally, I have a couple of 'Darwinists' for you to deprogram of their "flat earth" zombie-like acceptance of evolution: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/
I'd be careful of that second one. Both of these folks hate creationists, but that second one is in no mood to tolerate BS.
The problem with all this, of course, is that if you practice viewpoint discrimination yourself, it’s the height of hypocricy to condemn others for doing the same thing you do.
Actually not, because I think that viewpoint discrimination makes sense in certain contexts. In fact, your assumption begs for the mythical “value neutral” or “viewpoint neutral” position. But such positions not only don’t really exist, but they fail to address our actual viewpoint, because we think we don’t have one. Of course, some viewpoints might be unfair to certain subjects (like how an evolutionist might present creationism, or vice versa), but that does not mean that presenting materials from one viewpoint HAS to be unfair or discriminatory.
If you sent your kid to a Christian school, would you not have some expectations about the content and methods they use? And remember, I’m not saying that, for example, evolution would not be taught in a Christian school, but that it would be taught within a Christian world view, as opposed to an atheist or Islamic one.
In a public university, I expect that all reasoanble positions should be given air time, since public universities are, I would guess, by definition supposed to reamain “objective.” Christian schools, though remaining open to reason and logic, do not promise to be objective in the sense that they would consider something as true that was in direct violation of scripture (like extra-marital sex or Jesus not being divine.
I seriously do not find my position contradictory or hypocritical, but reasonable.
So you’re a biologist and a YEC, and you allude to evolution as a mass delusion among scientists? That’s a pretty bold statement. Explain why common HERV insertion identical locations in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees doesn’t conclusively prove common ancestry of the two species.
Before I answer such a question, which I will have to research, i would say this:
1. The case for either theory of origins does not stand or fall on one data point.
2. In this argument, both sides have some convincing arguments.
3. Many of the supposed explanations for evolution can be dismissed as incidences of adaptation, negative mutation or loss of functionality, or insertion/replication of some sort, but no creation of a novel functional protein.
4. The main disagreement is often not that evolution COULD have explained some evidences, but that such assertions are merely that – unobservable assertions. It often comes down to primary assumptions, which are by definition not provable (though they are vetable as far as reasonableness).
But what do you believe instead? You believe the Genesis account. You believe that the earth was created in six calendar days, and then the Almighty had to take a day off, because he was tired.
Actually, that’s not what the scriptures say or mean. Your theology is weak. Perhaps you should stick to your own expertise ;)
If 150 years of evidence over a multitude of scientific disciplines isn’t enough to convince you of the validity of the mainstream scientific view, you must have some pretty high standards of evidence.
Let me remind you that:
1. Many, if not most of the great foundational scientific discoveries were made before the theory of evolution appeared, by men who believed in special creation and the God of the bible. See these posts:
– The biblical origins of science
– List of the world’s great creation scientists
2. Evolution is in many ways more poorly attested to now than in the days of Darwin. Over the 150 years, scientists have become more convinced, not because of the supporting evidence, but because of the philosophical, theological, and perhaps even intellectual appeal of what they see as an “elegant theory.”
The evidence for common descent is lacking, and the mountains of contradictory evidence (that often support Creationist claims) are damning – nevertheless, the paper tiger of evolutionary prowess continues on. This is the whole point of my mass delusion article – men believe what they want to, often despite evidence.
3. Though science has improved it’s methods and knowledge over the years, evolution has not contributed much of anything to science, and perhaps hindered it. Evolution and evolutionists can’t really claim that science has improved because of their ideas, nor can they say that their own discipline is more sure just because science has progressed in other areas. Evolution is still as poorly attested to from an operational science position as ever. More data, yes. More supporting data? Hardly, and more contradictory evidence, absolutely. How many times this year have we read things like “this may require significant reworking of the phylogenetic trees“? No surprise here.
4. Modern 21st century science is in many ways inferior to that conducted even a few decades ago because it has been more deeply corrupted (than the normal level of human corruption) by politics, the pressure to publish, monies from private corporations such as pharma, and men who would rather produce a career than honest science. I have posted a few articles on the corruption of modern science, including:
– Why I Trust Science in Principle, but not in Practice
– The Politicization of Scientific Research
– Separation of Science and State (an article from the very liberal SF Chronicle on fraud in science)
CONCLUSION
To sum up, because we are dealing with origins science, it’s as much speculation as science – it’s largely philosophy of science, and quite honestly, either side could be correct, imo. But I find evolution doubtful from a scientific point of view, though I am also influenced by its philosophical and theological implications.
"This is not about whether you agree with ID or not. This is about whether you accept academic freedom or not."
"…I think that viewpoint discrimination makes sense in certain contexts."
"Christian schools, though remaining open to reason and logic, do not promise to be objective in the sense that they would consider something as true that was in direct violation of scripture (like extra-marital sex or Jesus not being divine."
You've gone from somebody outraged by viewpoint discrimination to somebody who defends it pretty quickly. My overall point was that your outrage is pretty selective, and hard to take with any seriousness for that very reason. It seems more tactical than anything else.
HERVs provide practically a photograph of common ancestry. I'm surprised a biochemist doesn't know that. It's even enough to convince Michael Behe. And if you're this wrong about common ancestry, how can I, a mere layman, take the rest of what you say seriously either, like the age of the earth and all the rest?
You've gone from somebody outraged by viewpoint discrimination to somebody who defends it pretty quickly.
I have not changed at all. The first comment was made by Aaron, and not myself. You'll have to let Aaron defend that statement.
Selective outrage is OK if you can justify it, and I just did, and I think I am being logically consistent, based on my use of contexts, e.g. the mission and goals of the organization.
When a Christian preacher starts preaching Islam in a Christian church, I'd say he should be fired. If he's in a Mosque, I won't ask for his firing.
If a teacher is teaching in a Christian school, I expect him to abide by the mission and perspectives, and limits, that the school has set.
Since the supposed mission of public universities is to provide a forum for research and education from multiple points of view, I expect them to stick to that.
What's even worse about this case here is that the censured teacher, who is doing statistical analyses somewhat critical of evolution, is being censured at a supposedly Christian school (Baylor). That's bass ackwards.
HERVs provide practically a photograph of common ancestry. I'm surprised a biochemist doesn't know that. And if you're this wrong about common ancestry, how can I, a mere layman, take the rest of what you say seriously either, like the age of the earth and all the rest?
You'd be surprised what scientists don't know outside of their own narrow speciality. And honestly, I've not worked in the labs since 1992 – been in computing since, so creationism is a hobby.
And how was I wrong? Because I'm not up on the latest evolutionist test case used as a weapon against creationists? I've made no claim either way on your proposal, so saying I'm wrong is sophistry.
My first approach would be to go look up HERVs at aig – and here you go:
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)?evolutionary ?junk? or God?s tools?
Or here: Were Retroviruses Created Good?
That may not satisfy you, but to say you have an open and shut case with no feasible counter arguments is debatable ;).
What's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable. It's OK when we do it, it's an outrage when you do it. I didn't realize Christian ethics were so flexible. No, selective outrage is most definitely not OK. It's highly dishonest.
That doesn't mean that you can teach astrology or dianetics in the public schools. It also doesn't mean you can teach creationism in the public schools. Robert Park said it best–"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right."
You've gone from
to
You've gone from 'flat earth' to 'seems logical' in record time. I have to tell you, I'm sure your intentions are good, but it seems to me that you're misrepresenting the evidence in favor of evolution in order to advance your religiously motivated alternate 'theory' that women share common ancestry with men's ribs. BTW–I couldn't help but notice you didn't reply to my question about just what the evidence was that convinced you of this theory. Your standards of evidence are so high when discussing evolution that even HERVs don't impress you, so I'm sure your 'women come from ribs' theory will be scientifically airtight. So–What is this mysterious evidence, anyway? Are your strandards of evidence as selective as your outrage is?
The simple fact is that you're pronouncing evolution to be junk science when in fact you appear to be completely uninformed as to what the scientific case for common ancestry is (at least at the genetic level), and even had to do a google search on a creationist website to come up with any answer at all.
The simple fact is that you're pronouncing evolution to be junk science when in fact you appear to be completely uninformed as to what the scientific case for common ancestry is
If that's what you think from this interchange, then "the simple fact is that you are completely" biased and fully convinced of your mental superiority. I hereby give you permission to change your tone and approach, or move on to other territories where such blustering carries more weight.
Here you go: http://cectic.com/054.html
YOu are obviously convinced in your own mind. Your poor logic and haughty attitude, however, won't win you any converts. Be happy, your religion is still safe.
Well, we're safe with opposition like you, that's for sure.
Look. I don't want to troll your blog. I believe people should be able to have any beliefs they want, and to post blogs about those beliefs as well–even ones I disagree with.
But let's face it. If people like you have their way, we'll be back in the middle ages. You support YEC, which means you're not just throwing rocks at evolution now. You believe the big bang theory is wrong, which means cosmologists don't know what they're talking about either. You believe age of the earth estimates are off by a factor of nearly a million, which means you don't think geologists know what they're talking about. You believe the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant and changes, so you believe Einsiein didn't know what he was talking about. You believe radiometric dating methods are inaccurate, which means physicists don't know what they're talking about either. You believe the mainstream scientific view about the fossil record is wrong, so you don't think paleontologists know what they're talking about either. And on and on and on. YECs make all of these claims. So do Chick tracts.
Seems to me that if you're going to say things like this in public, you should expect to get called on it.
I would have thought you'd be more prepared.
And finally, something to think about. If your religious beliefs require this level of sustained ignorance, maybe there's something wrong with your religious beliefs. You don't have to throw out all of the progress humanity hs made in the sciences these last 300 years just to be a Christian. There are moderate Christians out there who made their peace with the sciences. They even have blogs out there–maybe you could look into it?
I don’t want to troll your blog….But let’s face it. If people like you have their way, we’ll be back in the middle ages.
Um, how is this type of approach not “trolling”? Such views are common, pedestrian secularist nonsense and fear-mongering – either you don’t understand the Middle Ages properly, or you don’t understand what I am talking about.
I still think that my thesis about viewpoint discrimination makes sense.
Okay, show me where I went wrong in this riff:
and thru to the end of that paragraph. All those things I said hold true for YEC; if that brand of creationism is right, then we have to start over with a great many of the sciences, not just biology. YECs say the Genesis account is scientifically accurate as written. I mean, how likely is it that the sciences–to which we owe our current civilization, standard of living, life expectancy, etc. really are off by a factor of a million re: age of the earth, but the Pat Robertson and 10 million evangelicals are right? On it's face, it's a dim thing to say. It really is.
I never thought I'd say this, but you'd be sailing into deeper water by jettisoning all ties with YEC and moving into Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design is still pretty brown water. I hunt IDiots sometimes [and that's a metaphor!!], and since ID has less to defend as an idea (nothing Biblical) it's not as easy to scoff at as YEC is. But only a little.
Now, notice–and this is important: I'm not suggesting you abandon your 6000 yr old earth and the rest. Just be more up-front about it. To suggest there's really any evidence for a young earth is neither honest or smart. Make it an article of faith, and leave it at that.
Of course, your best best is theistic evolution. You've got a few sharp cookies in there, I have to admit–and I'm an atheist. Francis Collins, like you said. It's not really that much in conflict with the general idea of Christianity. You'll have to rid yourself of the notion that the Bible even can be read literally; at least Genesis. You can make the stretch. You do it so many other places in the Bible–you oppose what the Bible endorses–slavery, for ex.
You’ll have to rid yourself of the notion that the Bible even can be read literally; at least Genesis. You can make the stretch. You do it so many other places in the Bible–you oppose what the Bible endorses–slavery, for ex.
Again, stick to your own disciplines – your understanding of how to interpret scripture is rudimentary at best.
I’m not suggesting you abandon your bogus theory of origins. Just be more up-front about it. To suggest there’s really any evidence for common descent is neither honest or smart. Make it an article of faith, and leave it at that.
Do you really want to compare the scientific case for evolution with the case that supports your alternative theory of women coming from men’s ribs?
No, I didn’t think so.
Just think about it, willya? Give your science teacher a break. He doesn’t want to have to deal with kids filled with your disinformation. (And no, I’m not a science teacher).
I meant what I said about not wanting to troll your blog, so—
[grabs tagging pliers] ***SNAP!!!***
[Best crocodile hunter voice]
That’s hurt for a minute. Let’s see: creationus domesticans, med. weight and height, tag # 00666, released into wild this day in good health…