Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution Professor: Every Year I Give My Students “The Talk”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Well it’s fall again and the beginning of a new school year. That means evolution professors will be warming up their religious indoctrination messages for their unsuspecting students. A cynical and unfair criticism? No, actually, metaphysical and value-laden messages, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, are rampant in the life sciences. In fact evolutionists are certain they area right and so make no attempt to hide their absurdities. Consider David Barash, evolution professor paid by your tax dollars at the University of Washington. Barash gives a special lecture each fall to indoctrinate his young charges. He calls it “The Talk” (yes, evolutionists really are that pompous and condescending) and he happily tells the world about it today in the New York Times.  Read more

Comments
Yes, I agree CandiceC. Better yet, avoid indoctrinating or bullying them but instead help them to find and examine evidence for and against a theory, learning disciplined scientific rigor in the process. Education shouldn't be limited to memorizing things. -QQuerius
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
From my own experience I can say that students deserve to be heard. Otherwise they may end up turning to Essay Online Service feeling forgotten and lots. Just let them talk, hear what on their mind, give it a little discussion and this will give them of a great feeling. They will feel important and will try even harder to study better. Small things always form big ones. I like this idea of letting them talk…express what on their mindCandiceC
October 2, 2014
October
10
Oct
2
02
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Haha! Love the video, melvinvines! Thanks for sharing it. -QQuerius
October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
From David Barash: My friend, your ignorance of basic evolutionary biology is so vast that I don't know where to begin! There is, for example, abundant evidence for and explanations of why certain traits evolve rapidly and others slowly. But something tells me that disputing with you won't avail anything. Me: I do appreciate your response. So you aren't going to answer even one of my questions? Because I am ignorant? I would expect more from a very educated and respected person such as yourself. That is a typical characteristic of an evo-illusionist: demean anyone who questions. I certainly hope you don’t call your students who might challenge you ignorant. You cannot dispute me scientifically since no person on Earth can. All you would have to do is deliver a stepwise evolutionary timeline for the simplest of natural entities: a blood vessel. If you can do only that I will take my book offline and off-sales, and shut down my blog and videos. I am 100% confident you cannot, so you will distract from and block out the blood vessel challenge. You confuse the evolution of traits with the evolutionary formation of biological systems and species. I KNOW you know the difference between the two. You are far too intelligent not to. So you attempt to work your evo-illusion on me and it fails. You will continue being the grey bearded professor like the one I had at USC. You will continue indoctrinating your students with “The Talk” as I was indoctrinated; and you were as well. I do hope sometime you will give evolution a real objective and critical look. Tally up which has more miracles: the Bible, or evo. I say evo is the winner big time.I realize you can’t though; even if you wanted to. You would be canned. I also hope you do make an attempt to answer even my simplest of questions. I WILL give it a good and objective read if you do. Someone who is so sure of his science should find tube evolution an easy challenge since tubes are so prevalent and basic. I truly wish evolution was the answer; or there were some scientific answer that made sense. But the origin of living nature is way too far above the abilities of humanity's thought processes right now. So we continue making fables; like "God did it in 6 days", and “RM NS and TIME did it in millions of years". And we argue and argue about which fable is right! Again, thanks for the reply. It was very interesting running into you and your stuff on your site. It brought back a lot of memories. Regards, Steve David: Because I don't deal with insults and willful ignorance. Me: Tubes, David. T-U-B-E-S. I am ignorant about how they came to be. So are you. I admit it. You fake it. Willful ignorance? Gad. You really are programmed with evo-lingo. You respond with insults but you don’t DEAL with insults? Good for you. Somehow from your picture and your CV I expected more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHWrzzdItT0melvinvines
September 30, 2014
September
09
Sep
30
30
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Good grief Claudius, is #32 supposed to be a joke? C'mon. The guy makes a specific claim, which is demonstrably false; I then state that it's demonstrably false, and you start doing cartwheels and singing backflips in order to save him by putting a different claim in the poor man's mouth? Why? Do you not think the teaching of biology should reflect reality? Truly, materialists make the absolute worst materialists. The professor said that since the time of Darwin, we've come to know that life can be reduced to the powers of variation and selection. That is utter bunk. 'Variation and selection' doesn't even occur - can not occur - without an set of physical conditions that would not rise again on earth until the recording of human language and mathematics. It's a set of physical conditions - a specific identifiable organization - that must incorporate a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to even function. That fact is incontrovertible regardless of your metaphysical position. Claudius, you've been here a while - how many times has the topic come up that "evolution doesn't explain the origin of life"? Evolution, we are told, was never even intended to provide such an explanation. Is it an equivocation then, for a professor to say that living things are "altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon”? Of course it is. Blatantly so. And what if this professor willfully produces this deformity in logic each year as a first step with the new recruits? In generous reflection on the value and meaning of producing science, do you really think its okay for the professor to bullshit his students like this? Or are you simply playing the race card against ID at each opportunity and at every turn, regardless? Is it true in your opinion that a scientist/professor making demonstrably false statements about science to his students is actually okay in this particular instance because "they're adults"? Good grief. And the real grief of it Claudius, is that neither you, nor virtually anyone else on the ID critic side, will clearly acknowledge this obvious abuse. You won't, Mark Frank wouldn't, RB wouldn't, Elizabeth Liddle wouldn't, Kantian wouldn't. None of you will. In fact, just me mentioning these names would likely provide the peanut gallery with an opportunity for each one to come up with their own little special justification - just like yours. "They're adults, so it's okay to flat out lie to them in science class and call it philosophy". We can all delude ourselves that the good professor's precious little opinion is about doing good science science rather than his religious priors. No thanks.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
OT: Down The Rabbit Hole – Re-Release! (New interviews and animations) - September 29, 2014 http://www.whatthebleep.com/down-the-rabbit-hole-re-release/bornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
OT: In Endorsing Intelligent Design, Novelist Stephen King Joins a Distinguished List of Stereotype-Shattering Free Thinkers - Sept. 29, 2014 Excerpt: you can add him (Stephen King) to the list of other stereotype-shattering free thinkers -- whether of the ID-sympathizing or Darwin-doubting variety -- from Vladimir Nabokov to John Lennon, from celebrated atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel to the Dalai Lama. As a design-advocate he also joins Dean Koontz, his colleague in the horror-novel genre, who warmly endorsed Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/in_endorsing_in090101.html Is it just me, or has the definition of 'free-thinker' changed since I was a kid? free·think·er - noun "a person who rejects accepted opinions, especially those concerning religious belief." I guess the term free-thinker is now appropriate since Darwinism has in essense become the official state religion. That Theists should be considered 'rebels' does have its charm though! :) Of note: A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. EULER Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible." http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/translations/E092trans.pdf Leonhard Euler, the son of a Christian pastor, and a fervent Christian all his life, is considered a giant in the history of mathematics, and author of "the most famous of all formulas" in mathematics,,, God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.",,, The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,, Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.,,, The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God." When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3 (of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.) A Tribute to Euler - Harvard Lecture - William Dunham - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEWj93XjON0bornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
lol. This one deserves to be remembered: "This is a university class, and the students are adults." So why is this professor treating the student like children? My guess is he doesn't think their adults.Mung
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
BA77 #45 :)Box
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
What They Really Teach Students In A Evolutionary Biology Class - cartoon http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-96cpSHPgIL4/VCftJobtPmI/AAAAAAAALf8/ZVyC7GB9dm0/s1600/Darwinism_See%2BNo.jpgbornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
RodW:
I have to say, I read the primary scientific literature and see no sign of an upheaval
Rod, I can only tell you that, even though it's about science, it's not coming from the scientific community. I'm talking about the kind of science that will dramatically transform the world virtually overnight. Materialists and Darwinists will be totally discredited and will disappear into the woodwork they crawled out of. The other organized religions will also wither into oblivion but Judaism and Christianity will meld into one. This is all I can say for now. Just keep your ears and eyes open.Mapou
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS, Joe@34 observed
Just take a look at how pro-ID professors are treated. Ball State bowed to atheistic spewage and lies when they (the atheists) found out about a class that dared to have an open discussion wrt origins.
To which you replied @ 36 with
That’s because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists.
So, it seems that the academic freedom you cherish does not extend to minority opinions, does it? It only extends to those who hold opinions within certain bounds. Hmmm. Ok, let's try an experiment. A hypothetical student asks the following question in a hypothetical Biology class. "Professor Clavdivs, in light of the continual adaptations provided by evolution, how would you characterize homosexuality? Is it something that's selected against? I've heard that it's genetic, so how did it evolve, or do you think it's an aberration?" The students all lean forward. Some actually start taking notes. You don't have tenure. You begin . . . After your answer, another student--one of several in your class who have middle eastern names--asks, "In Islam we believe that Allah created everything, not evolution, and that homosexuality is an abomination to Allah. What is your view of Islam and science?" You take another deep breath and say . . . A few days later, your department chair wants to see you. -QQuerius
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Clavdivs, Your first point concerning, shall we say, “facts not in evidence” was refuted which you acknowledged,
“Actually, UB, I missed that comment
so thank you for that. Your second point was phrased as a vague question:
“What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?
. . .so we are left to guess exactly what it was, but it seems to be, based on your following posts, something like this: A professor can say whatever he/she wants. One effort to counter this point was to show the numerous counterexamples where such freedom does not exist, and you generously offered a comment to the effect that they should be allowed to make such comments -- all of this under a vague umbrella of academic freedom. Here, I think you missed the point that it is not about your generosity, and convictions toward academic freedom, but the reality of the double standard. You sort of confirmed this with your “we’re-all-adults-here”, and the “not-forced-to-take-a-class” in higher education tropes which both fell under the trampling of common sense responses that deal with the realities of actual university life. Finally, You cited UNESCO, here it is again:
Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source.” UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997
Read it very carefully and you will see that it does not defend, in any way, the professor’s right to give his “talk”. The statement is about academic freedom (opening statement). Thus, is it about the academician, the work, the institution, and ultimately dissemination of the work, but that's it. There is no prescribed doctrine limiting his work in biology. His comments are not about the institution where he works, the institute is not censoring him, he is free to participate in any academic body, and he is free to fulfill his function. The problem is this: He does not know what his function is. I add this only as food for thought, please consider your response. How can this professor defend the “talk” against the claim that it is simply a waste of valuable time that could otherwise be used to teach biology? If it is outlined in three points, merits an entire lecture and is featured in a news article, obviously, it is not merely a throw-away comment. Again, we are not talking about censorship, just plain old “do your job.” What I mean by "consider your response" is this: Please don't hit us with the "It is the job of any professor to challenge students". Nope, not going to work. It is the job of this professor to teach biology, and in teaching it well, letting the (possibly)new world of biology challenge (some of) the students.Tim
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Mapou, Any chance you could write to me about this upheaval? Even a hint would be nice. My screename is Lantog on aol. Yes, yes I know - I'm the last person on earth who still uses aol. You've probably guessed I'm a bit old - so I cant wait for the upheaval! I have to say, I read the primary scientific literature and see no sign of an upheavalRodW
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
corrected link: “Proselytizing for Darwin’s God in the Classroom” (from 2008): John G. West – video http://www.discovery.org/v/40/2bornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Here are several examples of atheists violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom: "Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEajEwzYwHgbornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
"But let’s drop these hints of stifling academic freedom;"
You bet, no subtle 'hints' are needed when the censorship is in your face obvious
“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? - David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014 Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum -- such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/censor_of_the_y081261.html EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk If Chemistry Can Be Wrong, How Much More Evolutionary Theory? January 3, 2014 Excerpt: ...In recent years, major problems have surfaced in evolutionary theory: the overthrow of "junk DNA," the discovery of codes within codes, the intransigence of the Cambrian enigma to name a few. Yet its advocates continue to bully anyone who doesn't toe the line. Darwinism acts like a religion, not science. If Darwinists were proper scientists, they would embrace the new discoveries that break their rules. They would gladly follow the mounting evidence that points in a new direction for the biology of the 21st century -- intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/if_chemistry_ca080711.html
Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:
Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents - Casey Luskin - June 4, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/anti-id_philoso060381.html
Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the Darwinian ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists. There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to dare to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for how all life on earth came to be.
Darwinian Philosophy: "Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose" - Casey Luskin - August, 2012 Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.” per ENV
The Altenberg 16, a book written by Suzan Mazur, who is agnostic as far as I know, is also very good for exposing the Orwellian tactics used by Darwinists, on fellow Atheists (or anyone else), to try to keep Darwinism from every being publicly questioned:
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry – book Excerpt: This book takes a look at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution. In one camp are the faithful followers of the long-standing theory of natural selection promulgated by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. This “survival of the fittest” theory, according to author Suzan Mazur, is no longer the scientific cornerstone of biology and has been challenged for decades. In the other camp are those challengers who want to steer evolutionary science in a more honest, scientifically accurate direction. However, the Darwinian theory has become a political powerhouse brand that is hard to unseat because of the money and power associated with it. The Altenberg 16 is about a group of evolution scientists who met in 2008 in Austria to discuss and attempt to tell the truth about this “brand.”,,, http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Altenberg_16.html?id=wk2FfQQ_DmsC
As well, an esteemed Philosophy professor, who is also an atheist, suffered much the same fate as Fodor. Thomas, and the Altenberg 16 from the hands of Darwinian atheists for daring to question the sufficiency of Darwinism to account for consciousness (which is his specific specialty of study):
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html
etc.. etc..bornagain77
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
That’s because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists.
That is why ID needs to be openly presented and discuused.
Philosophical materialism is mainstream, like it or not. Some 40% of scientists are materialists and some 57% of philosophers are too.
It is a failed philosophy that obviously adds nothing.
If ID is to make headway against materialism in the sciences it must first stop its supporters aggressing against well-established science like common ancestry
Except common ancestry is not well established. It can't even be tested. As for the age of the earth, well that all depends on how it was formed.Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Joe @ 34 That's because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists. Philosophical materialism is mainstream, like it or not. Some 40% of scientists are materialists and some 57% of philosophers are too. If ID is to make headway against materialism in the sciences it must first stop its supporters aggressing against well-established science like common ancestry, old earth etc. which are not actually the problem. The problem is materialistic philosophy masquerading as science - as mortiz pointed out.CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 28
o you know why I call it a lie? Because it is a statement made in the name of science, as an absolute truth, from a person in a position of scientific authority to persons who should learn from him, and is presented neither as a scientific theory nor as a personal philosophical position. Those who have a formal role to teach others cannot just say “what they believe” as though it were an absolute scientific truth. They have a definite responsibility.
Calling it a lie is simply offensive, for no good reason I can see. I am absolutely dead against gagging academic discussion in universities, even when it's professors teaching first years. They're all adults, and aren't compelled to be there. By all means email your strongest arguments against this professor's approach to him and the university - you may be surprised at the response. But let's drop these hints of stifling academic freedom; that is a dark road to tread down.CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- Just take a look at how pro-ID professors are treated. Ball State bowed to atheistic spewage and lies when they (the atheists) found out about a class that dared to have an open discussion wrt origins. That said, if a student brought forth the charge and it wasn't heard, that would just prove that double-standards apply.Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Joe @ 31 I don't think its that simple, Joe. University classes are not compulsory, like public primary/high school, and accordingly the academic freedom of professors is given much more weight by the US courts. Courts have been highly reluctant to find establishment clause violations in higher education settings, instead deferring to college governors as to whether the conduct in question is academically appropriate.CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 29 But if the assumption of physicalism is true, then the claim "life is within the range of a mechanical phenomenon" must also be true. Since physicalism may be true (because it cannot be falsified as you note) then the claim about life may also be true. To state, as you do, that the claim about life is absolutely false is simply illogical.CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
This "talk" clearly violates the establishment clause. Why doesn't any student stand up for their rights?Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
The problem is that he is sneaking in philosophical assumptions under the guise of science. There are, of course, more problems, but that's a huge one.mortiz
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Claudius,
I simply don’t accept that you can demonstrate the falsity of physicalism.
Physicalism is an assumption, and cannot be falsified (so it must be assumed). As for his comment: Darwinian evolution doesn't exist until there is translated information, consequently, it is not the source of translation. From this intractable fact, we have most certainly not "come to understand" "since Darwin" that "living things are altogether within the range" of a "statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon”, "namely random variation plus natural selection." His claim is false. And its based on a non-falsifiable assumption.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS: Do you know why I call it a lie? Because it is a statement made in the name of science, as an absolute truth, from a person in a position of scientific authority to persons who should learn from him, and is presented neither as a scientific theory nor as a personal philosophical position. Those who have a formal role to teach others cannot just say "what they believe" as though it were an absolute scientific truth. They have a definite responsibility. By the way, I refer especially to the following statement: "Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon."gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
What about if a professor taught a class on evolution and took the Stephen Meyer approach in discussing the Cambrian explosion, threw in Dembski, Behe et al's criticism of the mathematical likelihood or possibility of complex proteins arising through mere unguided chance, and concluded that intelligent design was a rational alternative explanation to unguided evolution? Do you think that should be allowed in the classroom? Well, it largely is not.Dr JDD
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 24 Hi gpuccio - It's not a lie if you believe it. See my comment to UB @ 25. I really don't think its helpful to the ID cause to be calling someone a liar for espousing physicalism. The reasons for this should be obvious. Glad to hear you're not in favour of gagging university professors. That's a step in the right direction. Avoiding accusations of lying might be a good follow up ...CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 23
Claudius, the statement is demonstrably false.
You mean: "Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon." ? Considering 57% of professional philosophers are ontological physicalists, I simply don't accept that you can demonstrate the falsity of physicalism. The fact that I agree with you on this is neither here nor there; the professor is entitled to his philosophical opinions.
Biology professors are not on the doorstep of being gagged, so we can do away with the histrionics.
Querius says he's "not qualified" to teach his philosophy; InVivoVeritas says its dishonest and "shameful activism"; you say its demonstrably false. Do all of you support the continued teaching of dishonest, shamefully activist falsehoods?CLAVDIVS
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply