Home
» Intelligent Design » Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)
Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)
| May 8, 2012 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
In an astonishing example of anti intellectualism four biology professors at Emory University, joined by hundreds of faculty, researcher and student signatories, wrote an incredible letterto the editor full of blatant scientific misrepresentations. Here are the more blatant misrepresentations. Read more
6 Responses to Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
CH:
1: Which theory of gravitation? Newton’s? That was seen as universal c 1680 – 1916, but is now in effect a classical limiting case. In short, it was precisely a case of an inductive generalisation subject to correction and limitation — just as Newton himself implied in Principia.
2: Which theory of evolution, at what level? The theory of minor changes by breaking working DNA code? Trivial. The grand metaphysics-laden narrative of the origin of body plans per Darwin et al? That is an inference to explanation of a remote, unobserved deep past, on observations and signs in the present. But if such an approach were to be consistently applied, it would lead us to infer that design is the pivotal cause of the functionally specific, complex organisation and associated (often, digitally coded and algorithmic) information used to construct body plans.
3: Of course, some diseases — per direct observational support, are caused by micro-organisms, but many others are not.
4: As to the question of the ethical challenges of evolutionary materialism — note the restricted descriptive term, serious concerns on that score go back to Plato in The Laws, Bk X, where he warned against pretentiousness, radical relativism, a concept that “the highest right is might,” and the consequent rise of ruthless, manipulative domineering factions.
In short, we see here an empty ideological talking point being used to try to improperly ostracise and lock out a distinguished Christian voice — one who defied the odds of his environment as a child — from the university as market place of ideas.
KF
F/N: Quite a lively exchange ensued at CH’s blog. In reply to a challenge from Dr Liddle that questioned Carson’s remarks on how “Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires,” I noted:
_________
{{ I think we should read Carson as speaking about the dominant Lewontin-style evolutionary materialism that rules the roost in institutional science and the academy, on which what he says is a serious and valid concern. A concern raised ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X and which we can see echoed in some horrific features of recent history.
Let me cite Provine from the well known Tennessee Darwin Day address of 1998:
>>Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .>>
Q: Did we hear sharp protests and denunciations from his fellow scientists when Provine said essentially the same thing?
A: Of course not.
I think the undeniable fact that we find ourselves under moral government [the very attacks against Carson make that implicit appeal!] points to a need for a worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT.
Though of course you disagree, neither you nor others of like ilk have ever been able to answer to this issue, ever since Plato raised it. }}
________
I would say as further fair comment, that the only serious candidate for grounding OUGHT objectively is the inherently good, loving Creator God. The radical moral subjectivism and/or relativism and/or amorality of evolutionary materialism, even if dressed up in the holy lab coat, is notorious.
KF
“What is most deeply concerning about Dr. Carson’s dismissal of evolution is that he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.”
No. I equate materialistic versions of evolution with having no basis for meaningful, objective ethics and morality.
I don’t know of any intellectually consistent materialists, so don’t worry about it. The vast majority of you are latent theists.
GR:
Unfortunately, the effect of the undermining of objective morality is to destabilise the particular point the factions want to push on just now. This leads to a gradual erosion of the bonds of restraint that keep cultures from disintegration from within. Heine’s warning to Germany in the 1830′s is a classic.
KF
Accepting that your entire existence is based on a purposeless, blind process with no end goal in sight does not allow for the development of social mores or ethics. Strict materialists know this to be true.
Further following up at CH’s blog:
Thorton challenges:
This being highly loaded and misleading, I decided to respond for record:
I; Re US NSTA:
Re US NAS:
I trust this puts the matters in a more balanced light.
GEM of TKI