Theory as Fact

And, of course, once again we have some people who wish to package Darwinian theory as fact so that they can present their views to the young minds of our country.

Tony, at 6:50 am EST on December 10, 2007

“You can’t check your intellect at the door of the church,” he said.

Exactly. Perhaps American biologists should initiate a campaign to have Darwin be given equal time with Genesis in the fundamentalists churches—just to honor “the controversy.”

Diana Relke, Professor at USaskatchewan, at 7:15 am EST on December 10, 2007

I have some difficulty comprehending the problem: If we postulate that there is an omnipotent God, then He could have created the universe at the time and in the manner that Genesis describes, with all the evidence of old age, the fossils, the apparent “big bang” and expanding universe, and the long history of living beings. After all, that is inherent in the meaning of the term “omnipotence. For that matter, He could have created everything 10 seconds ago, including all of us, our relationships, possessions, and our memories.

There is no need for a fight between religion and science. It’s the duty of scientists to explore the wonderful universe and all that God created. Religious people should aid and applaud the endeavor. Scientists should not denigrate religious people unless they can prove that there is no God. After all, where did the matter/energy come from that supposedly exploded in the “big bang"?

Hans Gesund, at 8:20 am EST on December 10, 2007

A middle age issue

What is the religion doing in the design of scientific curricula and courses ? Seen from the Sorbonne this debate appears as a middle age issue. In France we needed one century (from 1789, the French Revolution, to 1905, the complete separation of State and religion) to make education independant from religion (but of course religion and religious education are free). It seems still to be done in America.

Jip, Chairman at Stratedu — Strategy Consultant in Higher Education, at 8:20 am EST on December 10, 2007

If this is the only ground the professor has been castigated for, then everyone should be raising a stink in his favor. Matters of faith cannot be proven beyond the individual’s mind holding the faith, and too many matters of science remain theories in progress. There is a no-man’s land on each side. Religion and science are not incompatible, period. On behalf of the religious believers in this debate, please, y’all, think outside the box. God is so overwhelmingly powerful, right? Then, it seems to me that God can create all the mysteries and facts of science as well as humans and etc. Maybe God wants somethings apparent, and others only faith-based. The argument, the line in the sand attitude the professor tried to blur, is a step forward, and who knows, maybe again, God wants that particular type of evolution to happen? Each side needs to quit pushing and punishing the other so hard. I am not a Christian, do not believe in creationism, but by golly, as long as there is balance in the discussion, let the debate continue, just quit trying to crucify one another.

disgusted with both sides, at 9:10 am EST on December 10, 2007

Evolution is a fact

Two reasons for not accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection are: 1) the earth is less than 6000 years old, thus there was not enough time for evolution via random mutation and natural selection to occur; 2) God made man in his current form in a single day...man did not evolve (the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life). Why would someone with those beliefs even become a biologist?

Evolution is a fact. There is no question that it occurs. What is in question are the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

Psay, at 9:55 am EST on December 10, 2007

To reconcile Bible and science is not possible: these are two different lines of intellectual activity.

Science of evolution was for a century frozen in the form of theory of Darwin. Yet, Darwin’s theory is childish. It just provides the belief that random, spontaneous and not specific to any traits changes in the genes were sufficient to change bacteria into humans. This fitted the old Masonic (and, later — communistic) principle “Order out of Disorder” that denied God.

But, the harm to science was enormous: researchers stopped looking for the laws of nature and started explaining everything by probabilities. One of the results is today’s “statistical” medicine closely bordering a fraud.

Deterministic approach to science and evolution is forbidden: the bureaucrats do not wish to part with the safe and politically correct career-maker — statistical explanations for everything.

While there are people who try to reconcile Bible with evolution, the root of the problem is rightful dissatisfaction with Darwinism.

Michael Pyshnov, at 10:55 am EST on December 10, 2007

To me it seems that the scandal lies within the public’s willingness to grant an institution that promulgates statements of belief the legitimacy of being treated as if it were in the same league as those that allow their faculty and the students the right to think for themselves. (For Olivet Nazarene’s “Statement of Faith,” see the following: http://www.olivet.edu/about/history/statement.asp.) The adoption of statements of faith necessarily imposes a priori constraints on academic freedom rather than allowing for the longstanding processes of peer review and scholarly debate we normally entrust with the task of filtering out ideas that are inadequately supported by evidence and logical argument. It should come as no surprise that those who allow themselves to think independently in such an environment would be persecuted.

It is also worth noting that the sort of conflict we see in the Colling case only arises within a limited range of academic disciplines: anthropology, biology, cosmology, and ethics, primarily. In, say, the discipline of musicology, if one were to write a paper arguing that one’s knowledge about the date of a particular manuscript came by faith or revelation rather than by evidence, the author would almost certainly be dismissed as a kook or a joker. But for those disciplines relating to the origins of the universe and of humanity more specifically, the public is all too willing to entertain the notion that religious hypotheses are automatically entitled to representation so that “both sides” are duly considered. While superficially fair, this approach permits the survival of ideas that years of intense peer review and scholarly debate (or decades, in the case of creationism) have shown to be without merit.

If anything, this discrepancy between the insistence upon evidence for most fields of inquiry and the allowance for faith-based conclusions for a select few ought to highlight religion’s ability to muddle people’s thinking and suggest that its presence in higher education should be viewed with suspicion (if the persecution of someone who calls a spade a spade were not already enough).

Jason Gersh, at 11:25 am EST on December 10, 2007

Tail wagging the dog

This is bizarre. Religious believers presumably are nervous about evolution because they suspect that it undermines religious belief. Along comes a biologist who says it doesn’t. Instead of responding, “Great! Now we don’t have a problem with evolution—so much the better!” but “So much the worse. Now religious believers will be tempted to believe in evolution.”

What is the priority anyway: defending religious belief or opposing the theory of evolution?

H. E. Baber, at 11:35 am EST on December 10, 2007

Having it both ways

Disturbing here is how, when it is one of their guys being prevented from maintaining their views when these prove untenable at a given institution (the Wood Hole case), fundamentalists are quick to base their arguments on principles of academic freedom. At the same time, they don’t seem to have a problem when someone is disallowed from presenting contrary views while being employed at a university that maintains the primacy of a literal interpretation of the Bible. You can’t have it both ways!

Another aspect not really being considered here as well is the fact that one particular group of Christians is effectively imposing its views on others. Not all Christians insist on a literal 24-6 interpretation of Genesis, some on religious grounds. It is odd to speak of an Omnipotent God who created the universe of which ‘time’ is a component, and then insist that somehow God operates in ‘time’ as we experience it, hence as a creature subject to the rules of His own universe. As presented by Creationists, the act of creation often seems something derived of a primitive mythology (God of the Far Side?), something many Christians (and holders of other faiths) find troublesome. The point being, it is not simply a matter of religious people imposing their views on non-religious people; it is also a matter of people imposing their religious views on my religious views!

In any event, as I understand it, science first and foremost reflects a methodology, the rules of which Creationists refuse to abide by. By definition then, Creationism is not a science. I personally believe that God created the universe, but for me, this is an act of faith; the need to make it somehow scientifically verifiable would seem to speak then of a weakness of faith!

Erik

Erik, at 11:55 am EST on December 10, 2007

Apparently academic freedom and freedom of speech are only theories, out weighed by scientific bias. Higher education is where wonderful ideas are explored, where students may expand their ability to think, discover, and see the world from all facets. Narrowing that field of view is petty. Students when presented with a broad spectrum of ideas may determine their own views and not necessarily that of their professors.

2,000 years ago having an unpopular idea might have meant… being stoned to death; 400 years ago…heresy; 70 years ago… book burning; 10 years ago… book banning and/or censoring; today… we are so intellectually arrogant, that we believe God can’t be, simply because WE haven’t found evidence to support? Perhaps, in a hundred years we may find we were wrong; we may not! Turning a blind eye all to the possibilities does science and God a dis-service

Bill, at 1:00 pm EST on December 10, 2007

EVOLUTION MEANS VARIETY, ETC.

Do the shouting sprees over evolutionism and creationism exist because of the ineluctable human need to classify other people as either religiously or intellectually depraved? If so I guess they won’t end soon. I usually avoid these free-for-alls, but since I have a little extra time, I’ll chime in with a few observations. Some years ago, I got the habit of listing things by tens (maybe it was from watching Letterman), so that’s how I’ve done it here.

1) We’re all products of one sperm among millions that managed to find it’s way to a ripe egg and implant itself. Don’t anybody tell me there’s no randomness to human life!

2) I am not one for putting bumper stickers on my car, religious or otherwise. But I’ve often considered one that says “EVOLUTION—YOU CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT IT.” Because that’s literally true. Inarguably true, in fact. I trust that the never-ending process of evolution inside my guts and inside my bloodstream is going to continue. I’ll need it to keep being protected from various microbes I encounter. I’ll also need it to keep digesting my food. I’ll especially need it to keep me from getting sick from reading blogs like this on one, lest I vomit all over my keyboard.

3) If I do decide to go with the aforementioned bumper sticker, I’ll be sure and put the old standard fish symbol on the other side. The combination might make other folks vomit, but then maybe they will evolve a resistance to the unease caused by the conjunction of ideas, just as I have done.

4) I raised this issue once with my now deceased father. He pointed to the car in the driveway and asked if it was created or did it evolve. I had to admit that it evolved. The early cars were way different from our ‘68 Comet Caliente. But I never gave up believing in car designers, either. Though I’ve often questioned their wisdom. By the way, our Comet did not have any bumper stickers, intelligently designed or not.

5) If Darwin could see, with ordinary instruments, that a square yard of ordinary soil is home to an almost unimaginable variety of species, why do people who argue on blogs like this one assume that there are only two (or maybe, at the most several) ways to address this issue? My (very limited) experience suggests that there are more views on this issue than I’m capable of counting. Why should there be fewer varieties of intellectual formulation than there are of biological formulation?

6) Maybe I sound like a polytheist. Well, so what? I wonder if at heart, there are worldviews represented in the conflict that aren’t both monotheistic and if the gods they defend aren’t extremely jealous ones. Don’t many of the fundamentalists on one side of the divide predict the moral dissolution of society if their dogma isn’t dominant, and many of the fundamentalists on the opposing side predict the imminent death of reason if their dogma doesn’t win out? Does this strike anybody else as weird? What would Rodney King say about this?

7) I’m baffled by the comment of Barb King’s (the professor from the esteemed William and Mary) that ID “denies the earth’s ancient age.” If that were true, ID would be a lot easier to classify and denounce. Unfortunately for the classifiers, it just ain’t so. I mention this only because the good professor says she has written a book on the topic. Maybe she can correct the error in the next, more highly evolved edition.

8) For those folks who don’t understand why the varieties of creationism (from the very primitive “literal-six day” and “flood geology models” to the more complex varieties) haven’t died out, here’s an insight from the master himself: “Why,” he asks, “have not the more highly developed forms everywhere supplanted and exterminated the lower?” “On our theory the continued existence of lowly organisms offers no difficulty: for natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily include progressive development—it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life” (The Origin of Species, Modern Library Edition, page 162). I hate to make anybody depressed, but Darwin was right about this. The creationists will always be with us, in all their variety.

9) Let’s say it were possible to wipe out all those environmental enclaves that nurture and evolve ideas disliked by would-be-authorities. I’m thinking of the little Christian enclaves like the one where I work, and some of the more notable ones like the “you-have-Liberty-only-to-believe-in-the-six-historical-day-creation” one in Virginia, or the Holiness school in Illinois where Prof. Colling has been thwacked. Would the resulting ecological-ideological environment really be better without the diversity? I’m not telling, I’m asking.

10) Finally, for the fellow who complained that these sorts of debates are taking place in America, and not in other countries around the world, is that such a bad thing for America? I don’t like conflict more than the next person. But didn’t I read somewhere the other day that diversity is a good thing? Maybe it was on one of these IHED blogs or something. I forget. Oh, maybe it was something James Madison wrote about diversity being the best insurance against tyranny. But that’s another point, maybe for another day.

ClioSmith Trinity Bible Collegekelandsmith@gmail.com

ClioSmith, Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College, at 2:45 pm EST on December 10, 2007

There Is No Religious Exemption to Academic Freedom

Jonathan Knight of the AAUP is misrepresenting the clearly stated official position of the AAUP when he claims that religious colleges “are entitled to set out the rules of the game” of academic freedom. In 1940, the AAUP’s statement declared that “Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.” However, the 1970 Interpretive Comments, which supersede the 1940 Statement, declare: “Most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure.” This is an explicit declaration that the AAUP will treat religious colleges exactly the same as other colleges with regard to academic freedom. Who gave Knight the authority to contradict and misrepresent the AAUP’s position?

John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 4:10 pm EST on December 10, 2007

Won’t it be fun?

Won’t it be fun to one day, sit at the feet of Jesus and finally learn the whole truth?

Susan, at 9:45 am EST on December 11, 2007

Academic freedom in a religious government

The nature of science and scientific thinking is free, it can survive/ flourish when it is free from any kind of pressure and any effort to put science in a political and religious framework/ government not only does not work but for sure will end to the failure of science and scientific system. Academic entities are bodies of science and scientists now everywhere in the World and are responsible to guard and protect this freedom and not to misuse/ destroy it. In recent decades some religious governments tried to change academic systems to religious schools and of course it never worked and it ended only to a failure of whole academic system in those countries and unfortunately it only ended to destroying the life of many many scientists that were forced to leave their countries. Look where we are now on scientific findings! It is amazing, by turn of the millennium human being is putting his leg over edge of conventional science and is creating a magical beauty by the mean of laboratory/ field experiments and then communications, how this happened? All by the philosophy of null/ alternative hypothesis and pure/ hard work and communications. Now it is so waste of time that those hard line religious people think so simple/ selfish to change this and put it under their religious beliefs, it never worked and it will never work. In fact the creation/ evolution of this nice scientific entity all happened because of diversity and employing diverse ideas in all aspects of science and scientific thinking and now how these narrow minded religious hard liners would be able to change this? Never.

Ahmad Mahdavi, Environmental toxicologist at Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, at 12:50 pm EST on December 12, 2007

Mission statement

This Bowling, having been there 27 years at that university, knew full well the official declared stance of the university and the wider organization with which it is affiliated. So it is with a fake deceit that he feigns shock over this.

The other cases are those like Gonzalez being denied tenure for demonstrating the obvious implication of items together known as the anthropic principle. The Smithsonian editor fired for following strictly the peer-review guidelines for articles published in his magazines.

These are cases of institutions that talk out of both sides of their mouths, trying to pretend they are religiously neutral, while telling us which doctrines we have to believe, and telling us which religious doctrines to apply when we do science.

Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Mendels, Louis Pasteur, these famous virtually founders of their branches of science, whose ideas instruct and loom over today’s pipsqueak self-important “brains", these stars of science would be denied tenure at Iowa State for their ideas.

AppMaker, Advanced Application Developer, at 9:15 pm EST on December 12, 2007

Academic Freedom and Evolution

To be frank, I consider “evolution denial” on par with “Holocaust denial,” both of which fly in the face of incontrovertible fact.

And as for the argument that being an atheist requires more faith than a believer, that’s ridiculous. Using that argument, denying the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or fairies or trolls, etc. requires more faith than believing in their existence. Such childish attempts at rhetorical judo are specious at best.

Nigel Sellars, Associate Professor of History at Christopher NEwport University, at 12:10 pm EST on December 14, 2007

After reading these comments after an otherwise interesting article. There seems to be too many ID, creationist or oh why can’t you guys stop arguing(fence sitters are just lazy thinkers, especially on this issue). It makes me wonder about the state of US teaching institutions. Most of the IDs and thier ilk fail to make an even close to cogent arguement. Well arguing against evolution puts you in a bad position, as ID and creationism are illogical garbage. Any one without a religious agenda and the slightest scientific education (just watch a few nature programs could do it) should be able to see why it makes sense to support evolution.

I am just surprised that some many people (fortunately there was a good few supporting evolution) on an education site would be so ignorant.

Gaza, at 6:50 am EST on December 17, 2007

Olivet

I am a graduate of Olivet, and I am proud that the university I graduated from, is still basing it’s existence on God. While I was there, I took classes from Dr. Colling, and there was no dissension on who created the universe, evolution, or the big bang theory. The school was started on Judeo-Christian principles, and I hope it stays that way.

Tami, Tami at Former Olivet student, at 6:35 pm EST on January 28, 2008