MU Professor Taking the ‘Heat’
|April 25, 2007||Posted by leebowman under Biology, Evolution, Intelligent Design|
Columbia Medical Professor John Marshall made the case for scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design last night before 100 or so guests, and found himself taking fire from his peers for his view. Marshall, a signer of the ‘Dissent From Darwinism’ document and vocal supporter of ID as science is once again under attack for his views, perhaps the most prominent opposer being MU Biology Professor Frank Schmidt, who says he counted “21 distortions, 15 half-truths, and 10 untruths” in Marshall’s presentation. He further asserted that what Marshall was really doing was “cloaking a narrow definition of Christianity, which (he) found personally offensive”, and that it “really hacks (him) off”.
“It’s as much science as Darwinian evolution is science,” Marshall said. “And as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution.”
Marshall held up DNA as a possible example of intelligent design in action, calling it the “most complex, densely packed, elaborate assembly of information in the known universe.” He went on to say that DNA even bears similarities to computer codes or a language, e.g. a kind of organized complexity that could never derive from Darwinian means.
Where have we heard that before? More and more, scientists are coming to similar conclusions, which bolsters the case for ID. The extreme complexity of biologic life, and the requisite mechanisms for its very existence make the case for Intelligent Design. A detailed analysis of that complexity is due out soon in Michael Behe’s new book, “The Edge of Evolution”.
On more thing of note: MU has a program entitled, “Difficult Dialogues”, which is dedicated to promoting “Pluralism and Academic Freedom on Campus”. Taken directly from their site, “The MU Difficult Dialogues program is designed to stimulate rigorous intellectual inquiry, and to empower students to express opposing views respectfully and in the spirit of open-mindedness.”
Would not that entail acceptance of ID as a viable theory of origins, and certainly one ‘suitable for intellectual inquiry‘? Interesting that staunch ID critic Professor Schmidt is a sitting member of that group. Go figure Ã¢â‚¬Â¦