Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists


Alexander wrote:
> "Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1126037323.968902.149260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I know this response is coming somewhat late, but storms and power
> > outages have plagued the area all day.
> >
> > Alexander wrote:
> >> "Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1125752836.983292.72830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >I would appreciate comments on the following proposal. As background
> >> > you should know that I am credentialed philosopher, an evolutionist,
> >> > and an atheist.
> >>
> >> Why 'evolutionist'? Evolutionary theory is not a club or an ideology you
> >> know.
> >>
> > I think telling the reader where I'm coming is easier on the reader and
> > prevents certain sorts of misunderstandings - at least that's my
> > experience. I regret using the phrase "credentialed philosopher". It
> > is just a way of saying that I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from a
> > respectable university. I am currently living in France, but I taught
> > philosophy in the US, not in France.
> >> >
> >> > I would like to suggest the following practical strategy to counter the
> >> > anti-evolutionists' call for equal time in the science classroom:
> >> >
> >> > When a school board presses for equal time, the evolutionists should
> >> > agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the
> >> > curriculum specifically devoted to the creationism-evolution issue.
> >>
> >> I can see so many problems with this, it isn't even funny. Why even
> >> devote
> >> class time to an issue which isn't an issue until the theists declare it
> >> one? If you want to give time to the different concepts of creation
> >> (which
> >> by default includes arguments of design) then I would say a more generic
> >> philosophy class or religious studies would be appropriate. This would
> >> encourage students to consider the nature of comparative faith and the
> >> range
> >> of creation stories available.
> >>
> >> A specific class devoted to the subject would simply polarise the
> >> students
> >> even further into which 'philosophy' is the most correct.
> >
> > Well, I've actually taught the creation-evolution issue at the state
> > university level and invited in a pro-ID chemistry prof (not Behe) to
> > present his case. While the students probably understood where I stood
> > on the matter, it was all very professional and didn't lead to
> > polarisation at all. I didn't penalize students for being
> > anti-evolutionist themselves - as long as they had a reasonable grasp
> > of the opposing point of view. I'm sure, for the most part, I
> > strengthened most students reasons for believing in the theory of
> > evolution and rejecting ID as good science. As long as a balanced
> > textbook is tied to the curriculum, reason and fairness will favor
> > evolution simply because it is overwhelmingly the stronger position.
>
> Was this in the US?
>
> Can you confirm which pro-ID chemistry Prof it was?

This was in the US, about a decade ago. I'm not sure of his name
anymore; he was a North Carolina State science prof.. I found this
interesting list: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm . It
was probably Clements - #414 on the list. I was probably mistaken in
remembering him as a chemistry prof..


> > But Darwin himself carefully weighed empirical observations against
> > the theory of supernatural ID, and his arguments are as legitimate
> > today as back then. It's a way of teaching both science and philosophy
> > at the same time. I don't see the problem.
>
> ID is not a theory. For someone involved in epistemology and the
> philosophy of science, you do like to confuse terms.
>
> He did not weigh concepts of ID in any event. He made some fairly
> profound decisions in his life in relation to his personal relationship with
> God, but it was never about 'ID'. It was simply a question of where the
> evidence lay.

I was speaking in the context of Darwin, and he repeatedly and
specifically compares his theory of evolution and natural selection
with "the theory of creation" and "the theory of independent acts
creation." While he didn't talk about "irreducible complexity" it is
clear that in a broad sense he was "weighing" the hypothesis that
biological life and diversity were products of intelligent design
verses unintelligent natural selection. Taking a pedantic stand on
Darwin's use of the word "theory" in this context is counterproductive.

> >>
> > My experience teaching this material is that it just doesn't happen
> > like that. You start out with scientific methodology, and if a student
> > makes some sort of faith-based claim, they are challenged to justify it
> > scientifically.
>
> So your class on ID would take about 10 minutes then? Or are you saying
> that your class on ID would have to, by default, introduce the work of
> Behe, Dembski et al. If it does, then you've just handed to them on a
> platter what they've been after all along.

I think the main source of disagreement between us is that you and I
have a different take on what the philosophical issues and arguments
are. IMHO they are far more nuanced and complex than you seem to
recognize. The notions of "testability", "falsifiability", "scientific
proof", etc. are complicated and often misunderstood by scientists
themselves. If you want to know more of my own views on the issue
download a recent talk I gave here in France:
StrangeDebate.r5.2.8.05.doc.zip (This is a ms word doc that should
automatically unzip - but you might have to manually do that.)

In general it seems to me you favor the approach of taking the high
ground and counsel avoiding any public forum that "dignifies" ID or
presents as a view to be taken seriously. Ideally (I think) you want
want to rule ID out of court on the grounds that it religion, and put
the burden of proof on ID proponents to first prove they are talking
science and not religion before engaging them in any public forum.

The problem is:

(a) The american scientific community took this approach for years and
now it isn't working any more (whereas it was effective for a long
time).

and

(b) Our side is losing ground. and the strategy is increasingly to
engage the IDers in public debate. But the problem is that in general
scientists and academics are not as rhetorically effective public
speakers as ministers and many ID proponents. And, as you know, the
American republic is frightfully ignorant, religious, and
anti-intellectual. So the IDers tend not to make many converts in such
forums and their audience's views are generally reinforced, even after
exposure to the epistemologically superior arguments of the
pro-evolution side. The charge that mainstream scientists are
methodological naturalists and unreasonably biased against ID is
rhetorically effective and persuasive to a typical American audience -
more so than you seem to recognize. You counsel scientists to get off
their arses, but they have - they are just not very effective with the
public - even when they make the better arguments. In other words, in
dealing with the American public, at this point, it is pragmatically
more practical to treat ID with respect and argue against it
accordingly - which is how Darwin handled the matter with success.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hard Sci-fi?
    ... it down with your nonsens philosophy. ... math are never going to be more than a subset of science. ... everything is part of nature. ... some experimental scientists might). ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: OT: Huckabee, Ughh
    ... ...the level of knowledge in the field was such that it was still considered "philosophy", not "science". ... Science - whether scientists like it or not - is the handmaiden ... observe our universe and draw general conclusions about its ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... there being 'philosophy of X' and 'X is a philosophy' -- Jazz ... there are), the theories to explain them (evolution), and the method ... known the science is on a subject. ... scientists haven't thought about and that therefore they are ignorant, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... >>>part of Philosophy, not Mathematics. ... The theory of how science acquires ... >> If there was intelligent designer there wouldn't ... Any number of scientists who are adherants of religions ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: OT: US losing lead in science & tech?
    ... You need to take a look at the faces of the grad students who are taking the ... >> Europe and Asia to pursue educations in science and technology, ... Europe is already granting doctoral degrees in science at ... >> published more papers in leading scientific journals than US scientists. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)