West* denied wanting classroom mandates to teach intelligent design.Gee, I wonder who's responsible for "politicizing" the debate?
"That just politicizes what should be a scientific and intellectual debate," he said. "Sure, students should have the freedom to ask about it, and teachers should be able to discuss it without fearing for their jobs. But what we want is for scientists to be able to argue this in the public arena."
Word to John West: the public arena of science isn't the newspaper or the courts or the high school classroom. It's in the lab. The real Darwinian heretics don't waste time and money on PR. They publish actual research.
*That's John West, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute
6 comments:
"The real Darwinian heretics don't waste time and money on PR."
Eh?
From the Center for Naturalism webpage:
The Center for Naturalism (CFN) is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization devoted to increasing public awareness of naturalism and its implications for social and personal well-being.
Nevermind that they mostly don't have to develop public relations. They've done enough of that over the years (see Inherit the Wind, Carl Sagan, etc).
To be perfectly frank, the ID strategy has to incorporate public relations. Money and social factors affect scientific enterprises. To think otherwise (not that you do) seems to be naive. Secondly, if ID is right, then high school students are only hearing one side of the story and are consequently being tilted that direction, with no hope of being presented the other side. This could affect (and obviously has!) the philosophical commitments for future scientists. Making the public aware of your research project seems to open up the possibility for future scientists being interested in it.
In fact, the money spent on markething actually will permit the main proponents of ID to get into the lab and do research. Right now they have to speak at churches, defend themselves on websites, research, publish, etc. It seems a marketing strategy is simply a sensible move to reduce the workload on the thinkers.
I'm not arguing that the Discovery Institute shouldn't have a public relations department, but that its priorities are all out of whack.
If you noticed the links, they point to real scientists who have unorthodox perspectives on Darwinism--Lynn Margulis, known for work on symbiosis, and Eve Jablonka, a researcher in epigenesis. Both of them purport systems that run counter to the standard neo-Darwnian model of mutation and selection. And both have achieved success in the scientific community by publishing good research. Their nonstandard perspectives will someday be seen as obvious, and why? Because they're doing the work.
The Center for Naturalism doesn't support them, to my knowledge. And that's my point: they're creating a revolution in biology, and yet neither of them has lobbied to have their work taught in high school.
I challenge you to name one--one!--scientific revolution that began as a public relations blitz. (Einstein petitioning the courts to allow "equal time" for general relativity? Linus Pauling pleading with school boards to "teach the controversy" of the Germ Theory?) The DI's scheme is exactly backwards. Start with the research, and the revolution will follow.
Check out steve's perceptive comment, where he explains just how many scientists the DI could put into operation with the kind of cash they spend on PR. Jesus said it best.
I'd be curious to know if that's an annual number. They did, after all, receive an unusally high grant from good ol' Bill (probably $1 mil)--see http://www.gatesfoundation.org/PacificNorthwest/Grants/Grant-29490.htm
Also, you can only do the work if you have a place to do it. Dembski got run out of Baylor for trying to create an institution to do the very thing your asking. Baylor. Most people aren't aware that most of these guys don't have tenured positions, not because they're not capable. My hunch is simply that they don't want to get trapped inside the perceived bubbles of the Christian colleges. Attach a Christian college name to your own and everyone immediately thinks your second rate.
I'm curious--what do you think "winning" the ID/naturalism debate amounts to? What's at stake?
The Baylor fiasco was unfortunate. Some big egos clashed there, and just when it seemed that Dembski was vindicated, he had to go and send off this email:
"...Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."
Even though he may have been right, Dembski, as he often does, couldn't resist bombast. Being called "The Isaac Newton of information theory" can't be good for the ego.
(You might be interested to know that the exact opposite occurred at my alma mater, when an outspoken physics prof was pushed out for promoting theistic evolution. Didn't quite reach the newspapers, though.)
If Dembski was truly discharged because so many creationists (and we're talking creationists, not their ID counterparts) poisoned the Polanyi Center's reputation, then that's unfortunate. If he was fired because of his unorthodox ideas, that's wrong. But being fired for being pompous... that's predictable.
What has Dembski done in the meantime? Not much, as far as setting up a research lab goes. Could it be because he doesn't have the experience? He's a mathematician, after all, not a biologist. Maybe we should blame Behe for the lack of productivity. Or Paul Nelson. Or Salvador "Sancho" Cordova.
Meanwhile, science marches on.
What's at stake, though, you ask, in the battle between naturalism and ID?
1. Maybe nothing.
It's a false dilemma, if Dembski is right and ID "... does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system." Or doesn't it? "ID makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," mere sentences later. Sorry, Francis Crick.
2. Maybe nothing.
3. Intellectual honesty.
(Incidentally, the Gates grant was for transportation research. The DI does more than just bash Darwin.)
The Baylor fiasco was unfortunate. Some big egos clashed there, and just when it seemed that Dembski was vindicated, he had to go and send off this email:
"...Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."
Even though he may have been right, Dembski, as he often does, couldn't resist bombast. Being called "The Isaac Newton of information theory" can't be good for the ego.
Have you ever met William Dembski? Ever heard him speak? Ever asked him a question? Having done all three, I simply think your understanding of the situation, well, slightly narrow-sighted. It was a war--a flat out war. Hence Dembski's explanation: "I think it needed to be clear in my statements that there was tremendous opposition to this center, and it would not have been an accurate representation if there was not some reference" to the conflict. I actually think this quite sensible. After all, collegiality doesn't have to entail kowtowing.
Dembski is one of the least pompous men I've ever met. I don't know what else to say.
What has Dembski done in the meantime? Not much, as far as setting up a research lab goes. Could it be because he doesn't have the experience? Or perhaps the money? Again, all the ID guys are in the same boat--having to educate the Church (and the general public) about their project while conducting research.
Meanwhile, science marches on.
Forever and ever, amen.
What's at stake, though, you ask, in the battle between naturalism and ID?
1. Maybe nothing.
It's a false dilemma, if Dembski is right and ID "... does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system." Or doesn't it? "ID makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," mere sentences later. Sorry, Francis Crick.
The two are not compatible. Please explain how ID is compatible with any form of atheism. Where did the design come from?
(Incidentally, the Gates grant was for transportation research. The DI does more than just bash Darwin.)
Yes, that's why I referenced it. This fact makes Steve's "perceptive comment" a little less compelling (or perceptive). In fact they have no idea how much money the Discovery Center allocates to ID, and to compare it with the NCSE is to compare apples and oranges. Furthermore, compare the Discovery Center budget (the whole thing, just for kicks) and the budgets for science departments that are "ID friendly" compared to those that science departments that are engaged in furthering the theory of evolution. If it could be done, I think we'd see just a tad bit of disparity.
I have one further statement about Dembski's personality. You're not the first to tell me that Dembski is a nice guy in person. There are all sorts of people who are gentle and unassuming in everyday life who turn in to tigers on the page or the screen. And there are all sorts of nice guys with massive egos (myself, for example).
I'll address your other comments in a new post.
Post a Comment