Can you do me a favor? I have a previous engagement, or I’d show up to the lecture to ask the following.

Can you please ask Dr. Collins, during the QA, how strong he thinks his design inference is with respect to cosmology when he cannot produce evidence which demonstrates that the reference class of possibilities of sets of laws of nature doesn’t contain only one element, when he simultaneously rejects the design inference with respect to biology, where it can be demonstrated that the reference class of possibilities is quite large indeed with respect to DNA sequencing, on top of the biologically significant functionality of certain sequences of DNA constituting a specification?

This is to say that the design inference with respect to cosmology is necessarily vacuous (according to Dembski’s theory of design), while the design inference with respect to biology is (or can be made) rigorous. This might be an opportunity to see if Dr. Collins rejects Dembski’s work on the design inference altogether.

Thanks.

1. He is quick to accept cosmological ID, but rejects biological ID. this seems inconsistent. As an example, he reject the Cambrian Explosion as evidence for a creator, calling it a god-of-the-gaps argument. He states that one day we may figure out what happened there. However, he looks at anthropic principles or the big bang, and says that he can’t figure out how it could of happened other than God. Isn’t this contradictory? Couldn’t someone say “some day we may figure out why the universe is fine tuned”.

2. Related to #1, he rejects ID as both god-of-the-gaps and an incredulity argument. Yet again, he is willing to accept it in physics.

3. And, to build alot of his god-of-the-gaps argument, he uses Paley. But, I think he dismisses Paley way too easily. I think his logic about electricity coming from electric companies, and therefore lightning coming from electric companies is severely flawed. Paley used a watch because there are no other examples of a watch without a creator. So when you see one, it is safe to assume that an intelligent being created it. WRT electricity, we know it can be formed by rubbing your feet on the carpet, spinning a magnet, or an electric company – there are many plausible reasons for electricity. So, I think that is a poor straw man argument. In contrast, whenever we see a written language, we assume an intelligence. Or, if we see a motor or a pump, we assume the same. The fact that he goes on for chapters about the human genome illustrates a language. So, I think he incorrectly used the Paley argument.

4. I think the flawed logic in his dismissing of Paley might be why he came down so hard on ID. The reason for this I believe is that he is starting at a neo-darwinian view to begin with. Therefore, what he evaluates must fit with his primarly conclusion of the truth of RM+NS. So, the electricity argument was advantageous for him because it could dismiss Paley without dealing with the watch argument. Similarly, he indicates that Behe has already been dismissed as far as IC, saying that the BF and the blood clotting cascade have been mostly explained by ND mechanisms. Last I read Behe, however, Russell Doolittle still did not have a suitable argument wrt blood clotting and IC.

So, while I think it is still a really great book, it definately shows that his starting point is that Neo-Deo and RM+NS is true. I think he did a good job of presenting evidence about YEC, but his ID logic appeared flawed and pre-determined. He never acknowledged the fact that there are significant issues with ND. I think that would have been more intellectually honest.

Amen! I mean that I agree with that opinion, that is.

Of concern now is the future of faculty and students. If bio departments want to say, “only Darwinists will be awarded diplomas”, well that’s their option.

Given they could drive away 1/3 of their student base, will they do something so ill-advised? I hope not. I will say at JMU, I talked to some influential bio-professors there and I got the distinct impression, though they have a distaste for ID, they’re not about to drive a way large numbers of their own students. What the heck would that accomplish?

What the original discussion about was Francis Collins visit. The Provost and bio faculty are extending a welcoming hand to Christian students. I think there is some bottom-line sensibility coming into play. One can’t expect to be alienating half the student body for no good reason and expect to be competitive in student enrollment.

People of all faiths should be welcomed into the university, and though I intensely disagree with Darwinism, Francis Collins is a good ambassodor and I see only good things coming from his visit.

Why would I call Sal a liar. I don’t have any evidence that Sal purposefully misrepresented something that he know to be the truth.

I questioned whether he has supporting evidence for his assertion. He did not. Thus, he clarified that his first point was actually meant to be humor and not the truth.

Sal says: “What you don’t accept Caroline Crocker’s words? GMU refuses to officially comment. If it means so much to you, go interview the school and the student involved. Get statemets from them with their real names and I’ll post it here. How’s that sound. In the mean time, until you do so, you can stay off this thread.”

Sal, as I mentioned to Patrick, I had no intention of calling you a liar. I merely pointed out that there was a strong accusation without supporting evidence.

Since I have no interest in interviewing students from GMU about this matter, I will follow your suggestion and stay off this thread.

It is true:

1. she presented info from mainstream peer-reviewd literature

2. she mentioned some scientists accept ID

3. she was disciplined because a student claimed those actions were equivalent to teaching creationism.

This constitutes a very serious accusation and should be supported by proof.

What? You don’t accept Caroline Crocker’s words? GMU refuses to officially comment. If it means so much to you, go interview the school her supervisor and the student involved. Get statements from them with their real names and I’ll post it here along with their statements. How’s that sound? I mean, what are they going to say, Crocker was not dismissed for teaching creationism? In that case, it’s then ok for her and others to criticize Darwin in the class room using peer-reviewed literature….

1. I think pro-ID students and faculty would not want the reputation of the university to be harmed (as the unversity’s reputation reflects on them). Controversial topics like ID can be safely taught outside of science departments. Students are already accostomed to having to study things they deem useless in order to get a diploma. Darwinian evolution is just one other useless topic. I pointed out this fact in: In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom. So no one is advocating a change in the curricula at this time.

2. It would be detrimental to a biology professor’s career to be friendly to ID in the classroom. One pro-ID professor at University of Idaho (not Minnich) evidently ( as far as we can infer) was given horrid student ratings simply for the fact he briefly mentioned he accepted ID when a student asked him in class what the professor really believed. The 5 second response, he believes resulted in a highly polarized set of student evaluations. We can’t know this for sure, but I would simply say, even if academic freedom were opened up to talk about ID in science class, students like an aspiring Lenny Flank junior or PZ Myers junior I would expect would punish their pro-ID professors with biased student evaluations.

The point is, it is unwise at this time to even seek institutional avenues to teach ID in the university science curricula. Though acceptance of it is surprisngly high among students and faculty, it is a can of worms.

The solution is to offer it in the philosophy and religion or other special topics departments. Or study ID at a private institution like Biola.

The public schools are another subject entirely…..

Well, sorry, Sal, in this instance I don’t really see the humor in the situation. You accuse a University for terminating one of their teachers for presenting “peer-reviewed literature critical of Darwinian theory” and for mentioning “a news item that some scientists accept ID”. This constitutes a very serious accusation and should be supported by proof.

Salvador says: “The truth is she was dismissed for her mild criticism of Darwin.”

So this is the truth now? Or is this still “using figurative language”? If it is indeed, as you say, the truth, then I am sure you can support this with evidence, correct?

Salvador says: “The other item was the student who reported her had been reported by Crocker for cheating, so some vendetta was at play.”

And now we are tacking on a third reason. Again, I am not certain if this is supposed to be the truth or humor. If indeed the student was not willing to sign an affidavit, how did this figure into the dismissal of Caroline Crocker?

Salvador says: “No one is now saying GMU did anything illegal, but Crocker’s boss was still a major league jerk. Not exactly a conducsive climate for a university, eh?”

Well, noone might be too strong of a word. Seems to me that if GMU had dismissed her for what you originally say they dismissed her, that may actually have been illegal. But hey, maybe I do inded not have a sense of humor.

You have no sense of humor. The truth is she was dismissed for her mild criticism of Darwin. I was using figurative language, but she used things already in the mainstream. Maybe a more charitable reading on your part would be helpful.

The other item was the student who reported her had been reported by Crocker for cheating, so some vendetta was perhaps at play. The student would not even sign a statement to the effect that Crocker taught creationism.

Sometime later, Crockers boss walked in the middle of one of Crocker’s lectures with supposedly a simple contract modificaiton, when in fact it was the equivalent of a termination. She signed it without carefully reviewing it. She realized she should have been more careful, but she trusted her boss not to pull something so underhanded. GMU then persuaded her attorney’s to drop her as a client. GMU offered a big financial incentive for Arnold and Porter to do so, and they dropped her. So everything is now legal and in print, but legal does not imply ethical. No one is now saying GMU did anything illegal as far as I know. However, this is not exactly a conducsive climate for a university, eh?

Sal