Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Academic freedom for creation explanation

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Reuben Kendall, freshman at UT-Martin, has written a thoughtful view point regarding Evolution vs Intelligent Design. He raises important points on metaphysical presumptions vs data. He raises the question of Academic Freedom which incorporates the foundational unalienable freedoms of speech and religion. May I encourage readers to write editorials and viewpoints raising such issues and standing up for our inalienable rights.
———————————————-
Academic freedom for creation explanation
Reuben Kendall, Issue date: 3/17/09 Section: Viewpoints

As a freshman, I haven’t been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don’t take very long to notice.

In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.

I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections.
But I have learned that if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.

When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, “Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts.” Well, I am not so sure.

Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?
. . .
Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.

Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.

The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn’t academic freedom.
True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.

It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists. . . .

See Full Article

Comments
DLH (57), Far be it from me to answer a question to eligoodwin, but I felt you questions weren't of the same nature as the question put by eligoodwin. For example, your point: "Try telling an anthropologist that he has to demonstrate the entity that created the flint arrowheads before accepting them as of human origin" is somewhat offbeam. Flint arrowheads are known to be made by humans because they have been found with the remains of humans and other artifacts made or used by humans (and also the stone tools used for making arrowheads). There is no such associated evidence for ID. Furthermore, an anthropologist is still expected to provide evidence as to the type of human (primarily culturally, but for older tools it could be the species/subspecies of human). In that regard, an anthropologist IS expected to provide evidence of the designer. Why shouldn't ID be hled to the same standards? You then ask about gravitation: "Newton formulated the inverse squared law. Yet has science ever explained “What” gravitation “IS”?" That's not entirely true - general relativity provides an explanation which gives an excellent fit to the observed evidence (better than Newton provided over two centures before), and scientists are looking for yet more evidence to bolster their understanding (e.g. looking for gravitons). There may be a yet better explanation. But both these examples demonstrate the main feature of science that ID kills off by refusing to consider the designer: science is built up by small bits of evidence, with the occasional great leap, painstakingly searched for in mud layers, or rock strata, or particle colliders, or telescopes. Science is like a house built brick by brick - someone puts a brick here, another a tile there. With ID, nothing can be built: all avenues are cut off because no-one is prepared to talk about the designer. And ID COULD be used to talk about the designer. For example, design events could be located in time - say, lungs were considered something that had to be designed, therefore there must have been a design event when we find the first lunged creatures (Devonian? Carboniferous?) and therefore there was a designer of some sort at that point in time. It's by small bricks like that that the science of ID would have to be built up.Gaz
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
eligoodwin at 49 You still have not done the homework assigned you in 7 and 39! You said:
"hence the “design detection.” The premise of the theory relies on an such an agency existing, but can you demonstrate such an entity?"
False logic. 1) The agency can be presumed without demonstrating such an entity. 2) The design methodology is to provide evidence for the existence of such an intelligent cause. (i.e., In contrast to materialism which presupposes that everything can be explained by excluding such intelligent causation.) Try telling an anthropologist that he has to demonstrate the entity that created the flint arrowheads before accepting them as of human origin. Newton formulated the inverse squared law. Yet has science ever explained "What" gravitation "IS"? I repeat your assignment in 39:
1) Was the computer you are using designed? 2) By what? (sic. - By whom?) 3) Where is it? (sic. Where is that designer?)
If you are not willing to answer those basic questions, how can you expect your superficial questions to be taken seriously? Can you demonstrate that you understand the logical chain of causation in engineering and computer science? Explain the basis for reverse engineering? Show an understanding of software architecture recovery? How does science distinguish laws of nature from stochastic processes? How does forensic science distinguish between human and natural causation? If you have a victim with a bullet to the head, is that; A) a stochastic process, B) evidence of animal causation, or C) evidence of human causation? Was the obelisk in Space Odyssey 2001 an artifact or a natural object? On what basis do you answer? Or do you refrain to avoid self incrimination? Can you seriously address issues or are you just a Darwinian parrot, evolving from one sound bite to the next? If you want more than condescension, show yourself a scholar and a gentleman, and grapple with real issues.DLH
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
PaulN (54), Just to add to the previous post I made on this - the Appendices C and D to the Henke paper were written after and in response to the Humphreys articles you posted from true origin.Gaz
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
PaulN (54), I suggest you read the Appendices to Henke's paper. In response to the specific point you make, I draw the following from Appendix C: " Dr. Humphreys needs to explain why he continues to ignore the contents of Dunai and Roselieb (1996) and the consequences this article raises for his agenda. I have repeatedly cited this article in both my original March, 2005 essay and my November, 2005 update. Dunai and Roselieb (1996) deals with the SLOW diffusion of helium through garnet, a HARD silicate like zircon. Dunai and Roselieb (1996, p. 412-413) feared that garnets would be too unstable under a vacuum for their experiments. As an alternative, they exposed their garnets to helium under high pressures (250 bars), subsequently measured the amount of the helium incorporated into the garnets, and then calculated the diffusion of helium in the minerals. Garnets are silicate minerals that retain helium very well over time, even at high temperatures. Dunai and Roselieb (1996) concluded that even at high temperatures (700°C), helium would take TENS to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS TO PARTIALLY DIFFUSE out of garnets. They also discuss the possibility of excess helium in garnets, which Dr. Humphreys should think about with his zircons. Because garnets, like zircons, are hard silicates, the proclamations in Humphreys (2006) on mineral hardness are hardly relevant. The question is, once the defects in his zircons begin to close under pressure would the diffusion of helium in Dr. Humphreys' zircons behave more like these garnets? Again, Dr. Humphreys needs to be responsible and perform these experiments." And further to your statement that "the same could be said about Darwinists", let me ask you directly: (a) what objective evidence disproves Darwinism, and (b) explain why.Gaz
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Gaz, the rebuttals to your article are found here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp The main argument the Talkorigins article proposes is that the temperature and pressure at the given depth of the samples would have thrown the results off by an order of up to 6 magnitudes. The rebuttal to this central claim and made by Henke can be summed up by saying the margin of error of the rate of helium diffusion in zircon crystals has been experimentally verified to be proportionate to the hardness of the material. The example Henke uses to dispute Humphrey's data is the effect of pressure and heat on the diffusion in Mica, which is about a 2 on the Mohs scale, thereby making it very susceptible to heat and pressure as he showed the results being effected by up to 2 orders of magnitude. However Zircon crystals are a 7.5 on the Mohs scale, this is harder than steel and quarts, which thereby leaves a verified margin of error of up to 20%, which is significantly lower than the 6 orders of magnitude that Henke originally cited. The rebuttals to the central claim and the rest of the arguments made in the TalkOrigin article can be found in the links I have provided if you're truly interested. But in a nutshell, basically Henke's arguments show a lack of thorough review of the research and experimentation done by the RATE team, most likely due to not taking them seriously in the first place. This directly ties into and lives as an example of why Academic Freedom should be supported.
The willingness to discard obsolete hypotheses when the evidence disproves them is perhaps the single most important faculty for scientists. If creation science wants to be taken seriously then its adherents must start discarding their theories when the objective evidence is clearly against them.
*sigh* The same could be said about Darwinists...PaulN
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
eligoodwin:
Within the the “theory” of intelligent design it is implied an intelligent agency is responsible for things science supposedly cannot explain, hence the “design detection.”
That is false. Science helps us explain things that are designed on a daily basis. And it is those things that cannot be explained by reduction to matter, energy, chance and necessity, which also have a specification characteristic, that we then infer were designed.
The premise of the theory relies on an such an agency existing, but can you demonstrate such an entity?
So you are NOT interested in science and instead require proof. Can YOU demonstrate the power of accumulating genetic accidents? Those magical mystery mutations are some powerful stuff. Too bad they still remain a mystery. But their magical powers are legendary...Joseph
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
PaulN (28) "I’ve always found this young earth creation study interesting: http://www.icr.org/article/114/" It's certainly interesting, but the evidence given does not actually support a young earth for the reasons given in the following paper: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html The willingness to discard obsolete hypotheses when the evidence disproves them is perhaps the single most important faculty for scientists. If creation science wants to be taken seriously then its adherents must start discarding their theories when the objective evidence is clearly against them.Gaz
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
If you are going to call genomic and character evidence imaginary...eligoodwin
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
"Is descriptive power truly too much to ask of a science?" Apparently when it comes to macro evolution, it is for the current evolutionary synthesis, the only science where one's imagination counts as evidence.jerry
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
DLH--your condescension is delightful. Within the the "theory" of intelligent design it is implied an intelligent agency is responsible for things science supposedly cannot explain, hence the "design detection." The premise of the theory relies on an such an agency existing, but can you demonstrate such an entity?eligoodwin
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Is descriptive power truly too much to ask of a science?David Kellogg
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
eligoodwin:
Creationism/ID has no descriptive power, because it cannot answer how.
Since when does science "owe you" descriptive power. Since when is not knowing "how" a science stopper. And, prey tell, how the %$#@* did the big bang happen anyway? by your logic, If science doesn't answer the "how" of the big bang, then the big bang is not science!bFast
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Mapou Have you considered being a thoughtful person and exploring Intelligent Design as a scientific meta theory on its own right? Does not require belief in creation. Allows for recognizing some variation ("micro-evolution") has occurred. Focuses on the issue that all observed complexity is better explained on the basis of intelligent causation rather than stochastic processes.DLH
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Reading this tyhread, I am frustrated by the use of loaded and confusing terms like evolution and creationism. I believe in evolution (micro-evolution) and yet I would be hard pressed to call myself an evolutionist. I believe that living organizms were created millions of years ago and yet I would be unhappy to be called a creationist. I just don't know the proper label to apply to someone as myself. Somebody help me, please. I am having an identity crisis.Mapou
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Man, are we silly or what? Endlessly parsing every word a college freshman says in a short blurb that is intended to make a fairly simple point: challenges to the consensus view (undirected, random, chance mutations and natural selection ALONE can do it all) simply are NOT allowed -- and that's not a recipe for good science. Creationism has NOTHING to do with ID. Creationism attempts to reconcile "science" with a sacred text and a particular interpretation of that text. ID, on the other hand, operates in the same arena as forensics, cryptography, archaeology, and SETI in that it is focused on detection of design (within biology in the case of ID). Period. End of sentence. While there are clearly metaphysical implications of a design inference within biology, those implications are outside the scope of ID proper -- as any fair-minded person will admit. Requiring ID to "predict" things about the identity of the designer is like requiring a medical examiner to predict the precise identity of the person that committed a murderer. That's not the way the detection sciences work.mtreat
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Paul, The solution is to take away the "creation" part, and just be a scientist. Then when if some outcome supports a Biblical PoV, then so be it.Joseph
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Joseph, Thanks for the sound reasoning on the issue! I just still don't feel that the creation scientists who do valid studies should be alienated from the ID camp in particular for being overtly religious (This is coming from the mentality that if ID is indeed neutral to varying religious world views, then its supporters should have no problem with complimentary studies that are overtly religious, regardless of the religion). I personally see nothing wrong with sound evidence that supports a biblical world view. I agree that many are willing to just write us off simply by association to religious texts, but then again that's probably more due to the damaging bias that the secular society enforced with said separation of church and state. Something semi on-topic: A quote from one of America's founding fathers =): "Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity." -Noah WebsterPaulN
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Crap I just noticed that the links I posted earlier just bring you back to this page. Let me try that again: First Link: http://www.icr.org/article/114/ "along with a follow up assessment which bolsters the previous material:" http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm "There’s also the research paper by the researchers themselves found here for those who like technical details:" http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Helium-Diffusion-Rates-Support-Accelerated-Nuclear-Decay.pdf Looks like I need to brush up on my html tags haha.PaulN
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Charlie, Dean Kenyon began heavily indoctrinated in evolutionary theory from what I know of him. He co-authored the book titled "Biochemical Predestination" which founds a lot of the Darwinist opposition we see today. It was only through thorough experimentation and research much of which involved the NASA facility that he deemed his own theory implausible. I believe the central proposals to his theory related to how amino acids could possibly chain together of their own accord or by natural processes in the infamous "pre-biotic soup" not only to form proteins, but functional ones at that. He eventually admitted after his exasperating amounts of research and experimentation that his theory reached the "intellectual breaking point" in which he could no longer justify or rationalize the theory's grounding in reality. He also did this in light of a more intellectually satisfying approach to biology: through the lens of an engineer. In this sense it can be said that biology only makes sense not in light of evolution, but rather bio-mechanical systems engineering/design and information processing =). I'm sorry to say however, that I have not had the pleasure of meeting or knowing Dr. Kenyon personally, so I cannot directly answer your question. Unfortunately I cannot speak for his stance on young/old earth creation, but I'd have to agree with SaintMartinoftheFields in that he is most likely an old-earther. Hope this helps!PaulN
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
eligoodwin at 32 You apparently have not done your homework yet. "How was it designed? It was designed. By what? Intelligence. Where is it?" Was the computer you are using designed? By what? (sic. - By whom?) Where is it? (sic. Where is that designer?) Those are each separate questions. Let us know when you can understand the logical chain of causation. Then when you recognize that some link can be distinguished from stochastic processes without identifying the entire chain. Add that to your homework assign in #7. Start using a grammar checker, seeing you have not learned the basics of English grammar.DLH
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
PaulN, The answer is simple: In the USA there exists an irony- the (alleged?) separation between church and State vs. academic freedom. And seeing that Creation is overtly religious it runs into that issue, which is so arbitrary some people don't want to deal with it. It is that issue which is the cause for all alleged alienation.Joseph
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Thanks SaintMartin, Unfortunately the age of the earth is not raised in the sections mentioning Kenyon. Most of the references are to his repudiation of his earlier work on the biochemical evolution.Charlie
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Hi Charlie, I'm not sure if I can be of any help but let me try. Opponents of ID say all kinds of things about people doing design research. From what I remember reading in Lee Strobel's THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, Prof. Kenyon is not a YEC. On the Evolutionary News and Views website it mentioned that Dr. Kenyon was Roman Catholic, so I doubt that he is a proponent of a young earth/universe.SaintMartinoftheFields
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
eligoodwin, Atheists like yourself have to make absurd statements to back up your worldview. For example, "How was it designed?" There is something called synthetic biology so the question of how is not a big issue. They expect to have their own cell in 5-10 years.jerry
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Creationism is falsified when its 6000 year premise is falsified. To most, including myself, the falsification is unequivical. Therefore creationism is a refuted hypothesis.
you do know that there are old earth creationists like Hugh Ross?tsmith
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Creationism/ID has no descriptive power, because it cannot answer how. How was it designed?
can you explain how molecules became self-replicating and then became alive? so how does evolution have any descriptive power? evolution cannot tell us what the next 'evolution' of bacterial anti-biotics resistance will be..what good is it? all evolution can say is 'it happened' no matter what happens...'it evolves' 'it happened'tsmith
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Creationism/ID rests upon some "intelligent agency" being responsible for life--creationists call it a god IDists call it "intelligence." I ask what is the difference? Creationism/ID has no descriptive power, because it cannot answer how. How was it designed? It was designed. By what? Intelligence. Where is it?eligoodwin
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Hi PaulN, This is a little off-topic, but since you know the man perhaps you could answer. I keep hearing form anti-IDers that Dean Kenyon is a YEC as if they are all reading from the same pamphlet (Matzke recently made the claim). This seems odd to me since Kenyon wrote the book on abiogenesis which, I presume, takes as its staring point an "old" earth. And then their is the Johnson article online entitled "Dean Kenyon, Old Earth Creationist". So, do I need to pick up the latest pamphlet? Is he, in fact, a YEC?Charlie
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Brave student. I hope the Darwinists who show up for the screening of Expelled are respectfull.SaintMartinoftheFields
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
David Kellogg:
DLH and bFast defends the falsifiability of both ID and creationism [9]. These are just examples from this thread.
The difference between ID and Creationism is in the nature of falsification. Creationism is falsified when its 6000 year premise is falsified. To most, including myself, the falsification is unequivical. Therefore creationism is a refuted hypothesis. ID theories, such as IC would be falsified if pathways to irreduceably complex things could be proven to exist. I have not seen a compelling case refuting the IC of the flagellum. If I see such a case, my faith in IC will be severly challenged. Notice that I use the term faith. This is not a religious term, or at least not a term that is exclusively owned by religion. I also believe that the big bang theory is correct -- dispite Hawking's latest musing that the universe may have contracted to become the size of a basketball, rather than being a singularity at some point. eligoodwin:
Instead of a god being responsible for things we cannot yet explain, an “intelligence” is responsible.
Now you are implying the following premise: "god = unfalsifiability". What if all of the science showed a 6,000 year old earth and universe? Would the god hypothesis be unfounded? Your faith seems to be in "yet". You seem to think that the answer to every "gap" is "yet" -- as in we don't understand abiogenesis "yet". Behe presents a case, very similar to Heizenberg's case for "uncertainty" that you can't get there from here by road, that logic dictates that there is no path up mount improbable. The challenge, "We can determine that there can be no path up mount improbable" is a very different case than, "we haven't yet found a path up mount improbable." His hypthesis is of the kind, "falsfiable". If a path up mount improable can be found, his hypothesis is falsified. God need not be part of the equation. Intelligence need not be part of the equation. Behe has not said "we don't know how to get there from here", he has said, "we can logically prove that one can't get there from here via the Darwinian method." He further demonstrates a method of getting there from here, a well trod path. That path is the influence of an intelligent agent. This is simple logic, this is simple science. You can't get past it with weak philosophy.bFast
March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply