Intelligent Design in Universities

Who has designs on your students' minds? | NatureIntelligent Design is a growing force in the universities. There are not the same political and legal barriers in universities that there are in public schools.Though I believe intelligent design's rightful place is in the science classes, a workable compromise would be to teach intelligent design and creationism in the religion departments of universities. I believe the interest level is significant enough for administrators to consider offering the courses out of purely marketing and financial considerations.Salvador Cordova

Thank you, Limbo for the kind words!In response to Wounded King, the best rationale for putting ID in the view of the administrators and department heads is what ID will do for them. I have been quite open about the fact that the ID and creationist classes could be of mutual interest to the movement and the religion departments and educational institutions that would love to expand their financial base. We are exploring ways to enable them to teach ID and creationism easily and profitably. It will further our marketing of the concept to the next generation of scientists. Even if the department heads and administrators don't believe ID and/or creationism, money talks!Recall however, the push at first is for ID in the religion departments. Eugenie Scott, though she disagrees, seemed surprisingly neutral to the idea of ID and creationism being taught in the religion departments, and was even marginally supportive if it would keep ID out of the science classes. Thus, we may have a workable compromise at this time. Her partial acquiecence on the issue is huge victory for us. She'll oppose us in the public schools (heck I oppose us in the public schools), but not on the campuses. In fact, Brumfiel reported about the divisions among the Darwinists! What was amusing is he called the Darwinists, and that was remarkable in itself!If ID and/or creationism, gain a foothold in the college culture, it will only be a matter of time before more Stephen Meyers' and William Dembski's and Caroline Crocker's are teaching at secular institutions. We are aiming to win the heart of the scientific community of tomorrow, not the scientific community of today.

thank you for your assistance.In response to your questions:

quote:

---

Sal, I am a novice in the area of intelligent design. I have heard a lot of bad arguments which tout the usefulness of such knowledge, but I as a believer have nevertheless sided with the science guys in regards to this topic. In the article which you cited, several questions were raised. Can you give me your answer to them?

---

I'll try.

quote:

---

Phatboy asked:
Tell me, a believer, why you feel this way [that it would be better to add a creator to the mix]

---

That was Brumfiel's characterization of the situation. He was close, but it does not capture my thought process. What I outlined to him (and Brumfiel has degree in physics ) was the deductions from physical law imply that some sort of deity exists. The conclusion that a deity exists is somewhat outside of ID proper, but if physical law infers a diety, that makes ID arguments a bit more palatable than just attacking Darwinian evolution. I outline the derivation of that thesis in God in the Equations.

quote:

---

phatboy asked:

​

How would you convince scientists who are also perhaps agnostic/atheist that intelligent design does make sense? In other words, how can you speak the language of science? (Can you?)

---

We can be slowly persuading them based on the facts. The young are willing to believe and explore it, and that's the first step. The ID leadership, in many ways, has decided to give up trying to persuade the existing generation. The poll by the way, done at James Madison (not George Mason) was done by the agnostic and atheist college students who felt ID and creationism should get a fairer hearing on the college campuses. That was extraodinary! But it goes to show, that the younger generation atheists and agnostics are much more friendly to the idea of God than the prior generation. They confide in me they want to believe if they could only see the scientific evidence. They feel the ID makes a good case. Antony Flew set an important example for them.We've made a commitment to aim for those who have less to lose financially and emotionally, namely the young. It's very hard persuading an old professor who has devoted 40 years of their life trying to prove a theory close to his heart. The thought that they could be wrong is just too much! The young do not have these barriers, and they are optimistic that the universe has purpose. We just need to get the facts and theories to them, and we are meeting with success as the article reported.

quote:

---

phatboy:

​

What response would you have to Ms. Forrests question and assertion?

---

First of all, I have to thank Barbara for propelling our organization to fame. Her conspiracy theories about IDEA supposedly being part of a large covert masterplan to overtake the government provide an endless source of entertainment to us. IDEA has gotten so much attention because of the publicity drama she created.Forrest is wrong about us wanting to split the public understanding of science. This is a joke, and I have 3 times more scientific training than her, and by some measures, I'm only moderately trained. We want people to know more about science. I have an easier time persuading students with strong backgrounds in math, chemistry, physics, and biology. I have the hardest time persuading humanities students commited to not believing ID.I would add, consider the fact that Caroline Crocker was not an IDists until some fellow science professors gave her ID materials. She is one of the few of the older generation who converted, but that will play out with the younger generation many times over if we are just able to reach them with the information. There are enough dissenters in the older generation of scientists, that the next generation does not totally feel like they are out on a limb. We want more people who are well informed about science like Caroline Crocker.

quote:

---

phatboy asked:

​

Were a student raised strictly on the teaching of I.D. creationism, would this teaching equip them for jobs in the secular world related to scientific disciplines?

---

I don't know, and therefore to be safe and to be fair I encourage the bio majors in our IDEA chapters to learn and study theories like evolutionary biology even if they don't believe it is true.I should mention we have bio majors in our IDEA chapters that are undergraduates, graudates, and PhD candidates, and faculty. Some of them have had as much exposure to Darwinian evolution from professors, text books, peer-reviewed journals, and supposed experimental proof as any one in the world, and yet the are still IDists. It's testament of the inablity of Darwian theory to mount a convincing case to biologists who are well qualified to decide for themselves.In any case, I want IDEA members to learn as much about other theories, and to even view ID theory with healthy skepticism as every good scientist should exercise.I do believe, part of appreciating the power of ID theory is witnessing the weakness of competing theories. That's why I delight when the IDEA members who are bio majors take evolutionary biology classes only to come back and tell me that ID makes far more reasonable claims from a scientific standpoint. For example, one ID member said she asked her professor about the theoretical transitional between a prokaryotic to a eukaryotic cell, the professor said, "I don't know". This line of questioning went on for several other transitionals with the same result. She now knows we weren't lying to her when we told her the empirical support is lacking where it is really needed. Then she meets someone like micro biologist Caroline Crocker, and then she's pretty much at peace over the issue that proponents of Darwinian evolution have not been able to substantiate their case.This message has been edited by scordova, 05-03-2005 04:58 PM

quote:

---

mick wrote:

​

If you read the article...

​

It certainly isn't a growing force amongst people how actually study biology.

---

Not only did I read the article, I provided information for the article. The case of Caroline Crocker and Michael Behe are the tip of the iceberg. We're only 2% perhaps of academia, but it wasn't even that much some time ago. Brumfiel did not mention that we have several IDEA bio majors all the way up to the PhD level.

quote:

---

An utterly despicable and cynical philosophy of education, scordova.

---

Like any department fighting for money to stay alive, the religion and philosophy departmensts in the USA are on the brink of finding a way to attract a large flow of money into their departments from legislatures and alums and donations, and ultimately students!This is will be glorious! The Darwinists will say ID is religion and belongs in the religion departments. Well, there the IDists will be in the university, right in the religion departments, free from being controlled by the Darwinists, free from persecutions like those leveled at Bill Dembski and Caroline Crocker. They will be free to encourage research and exploration, and be in a setting where they will be celebrated rather than ridiculed.Right there in the religion departments, right there at the universities, ID will have a voice where it cannot be suppressed by the peer-review process. Right there showing ID videos, and (gasp) even creationist videos, and distributing literature like crazy and hosting discussions. Can you imagine the effect on the campus culture? Then the students will be on the net, able to corroborate the findings of the IDists.The IDEA members in our chpaters are science students all the way up to the PhD level, and in disciplines like biology. I KNOW how unlikely it is that the Darwinist case can persuade them to relinquish their sympathies to ID. I know for a fact that they come back to me each week telling me their biology professors are unable to give them proof of Darwin's grand claims (that's because Darwin's theory is wrong!). The effect of seeing their professors capitulation is powerful!A somewhat forgotten opinion from the Father of ID, Phillip Johnson: Johnson Interview

quote:

---

PJ: Oh, I'm in favor of teaching biology in the high school.

​

YB: But teaching modern biology can't be done without teaching modern scientific thinking on the evolution of the species.

​

PJ: Well, now this is why I feel that the essential argument has to be carried on at the higher level, at the university level, and it's interesting you see that the people that come from the NCSE side are always trying to say this is just an issue in the high schools. Let's talk about high schools.

​

YB: Well, that's their primary focus of course. Let's say that the problem is that we must teach some biology in the high school level for educational reasons. In other words, we want to present some sort of option for the kids and also give them background that they can use as adults. Let's say from your point of view the net effect, even if not intended, is that you teach what amounts to a naturalistic philosophy.

​

PJ: Oh, but it is intended. It's not, "not intended." It is intended, that's what the whole thing is about, is indoctrinating the kids in the philosophy.

---

and this is corroborated by anti-IDist Barbara Forrest whose alarmist scare tactics have actually hastened the arrival of ID in universities by all the publicity she attracted to us. We were veritble nobodies till she painted us some incredible onslaught intent on invading the unversities.

quote:

---

page 301, Creationism's Trojan Horse:

​

Dembski recently indicated hopes for ID recruits from high schools and colleges: "My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program....To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm."

​

The recruits may not be long coming. [ ]. The Wedge has already acquired two groups of college followers, the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) and the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club. The IDURC has become a division of Access Research Network and promotes Wedge books and other products through links to ARN's website and to commercial sites like Amazon.com.....

​

The IDEA Center's advisory board consists of Wedge members Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Jay Wesley Richards, Mark Hartwig, and Francis Beckwith; Dennis Wagner executive director of Access Research Network ......

​

The Wedge has always had as a goal the insertion of ID courses into the university curriculum

​

....
page 168

​

Finally the Intelligent Design and Evolution Aawreness Club (IDEA) was formed in May 1999....

​

they do represent a a vast potential pool of recruits that the Wedge is cultivating

---

I'd like to commend Barbara Forrest for her optimistic appraisal of ID's future!This message has been edited by scordova, 05-04-2005 04:42 PM

Hey Jerry,I've been so busy responding to my critics, I forgot to say, "hi" to one of my good friends.I hope the Nature article has encouraged you that our efforts are not in vain. There are at least 20 bio majors in our Virginia IDEA chapters that I know, the number of ID friendly bio majors at the universities in our chapter's sphere is probably upwards of 80 and growing. We're slowly making inroads on the campuses. I believe that is a long term trend.In case I forgot to mention it, see:
Thoughts on "Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?" take care,
Salvador

quote:

---

What exactly do ID proponets dislike about science?

---

Your question takes the form of a Fallacy of PresuppositionYou accuse IDists of disliking science. That's bad form and a misrepresentation of our likes and dislikes.Did you notice that in the article half of my group that Brumfiel saw that night were science students including a professor of cellular biology? Kind of negates your attempt at misrepresentation.Perhaps you should retract your misrepresentation, and maybe I'll consider responding to some of your other inquiries.

quote:

---

I've asked him several questions he has not seen fit to reply to.

---

That's true. You are invited to discuss scientific issues and the general political climate of the university campuses. I don't think it's a good idea trying to misrepresent the likes and dislikes of people you don't even know (such as me and my IDEA chapters).If you wish to have some of your questions responded to, perhaps a more tactful approach of open inquiry, rather than presumptious accusations would be a better strategy.

quote:

---

Mike asked:
Perhaps you can answer a simple question. I doubt it, but I will give you a shot.

---

Quite the contrary, I'm only giving you a shot. I'm responding not to persuade you, but to encourage sympathetic readers.

quote:

---

Exactly how is ID, which posits an unknown force capable of manipulating events on many scales in some unknown yet effective manner (a decent definition of a deity) not just a sham for simple religious creationism?

---

ID is rooted in interpretations of physical law, therefore it qualifies as a hypothesis (not necessarily proven truth, but a hypothesis). Biblical Creationism is based on a religious text and faith positions. Where the ID and Biblical Creationism arrive at the same conclusions, some have considered it as a candidate for scientific creationism, as listed here by Stephen Meyer:
Can there be a scientific theory of creation?If the ID inferences are derived purely from interpretations of physical law and empirical evidence, then what is the problem? If the emprical evidence is consistent with the creation account, then that does not negate the plausibility of the inference. Many IDists make no bones about the fact that they are also creationists. Walter Bradley and Paul Nelson are good examples. ID is not a sham. The creationists in the ID movement have adopted the "Science Alone" approach to promote ID.When they promote ID and/or creationism, as I do, we customarily indicate when what we are saying is outside of ID and based on religious text and Biblical Creationist interpretations. I certainly do that in my discussions. I delineate an ID inference versus a creationist hermaneutic. So what if the two happen to coincide, as long as the science is correct. In fact, at the university level, if ID were purely religious, there would be no need to offer it as a separate class from creationism. But because ID derives it's inferences from science alone, it is appropriate to be separated from Biblical Creationism. At the university level, I hope both will be offered, because 55% of the students want undiluted creationism. Where as only 14% want pure ID. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense to offer creationism in addition to ID.

quote:

---

Also, at what point is it appropriate, if the god of ID exists, is it proper for researchers to stop and say "goddidit"?

---

That is the researchers choice. I personally am glad some have just kept going at it and finding nothing. That re-inforces the design hypothesis. I suppose if the creationists are right, the researchers will know one day, won't they? But if Antony Flew's conception is correct, I guess, no one will ultimately know...

quote:

---

In light of my admisson, maybe you would like to recant on your claims that a biology professor saying that they do not know a thing is somehow support for creationism (or ID... whichever... same thing). Since you have the ability to look up a fallacy on the web, perhaps you might take the time to look up false dichotomy.

---

I'm afraid I should not recant because scientific hypotheses are not formulated under structure subject to pure dichotomy. The Popperian formulation of scientific theories is based on testablity and falsfiability. Scientific theories are not absolutely proven in the formal logical sense, they are proposed, tested, and established to have survived a degree of falsification. And then offered as a faith claim that the hypothesis will survive further attempts at falsification.The questions the IDEA members pose to their professors, such as the plausibility of Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic transitions, are subject to falsification if a plausible detailed evolutionary trajectory is ever proposed. Thus the hypothesis is tested and exposed to falsification. Scientific theories, therefore do not fall into the either/or dichotomy, they fall within the framework of falsifiable statements under the Popperian formulation.And incidentally, despite Popper's weak retraction, Darwinian theory does not classify as a scientific theory in the Popperian sense:

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science--the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

​

Ernst Mayr

---

This message has been edited by scordova, 05-05-2005 09:54 PM

If ID, ahem, I mean "the controversy", is taught in the public schools, how will the students who think naturalistic evolution is a fact react?

quote:

---

Los Angeles Times Reports

​

Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.

​

Afterward, she was curious and confused.

​

"I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?"

​

That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.

---

Glorious!In answer to your question, Christine, the "science" you are learning in class is "science falsely so called".The hearings have already borne fruit as we've enlightened one young mind. May the hearings lead to enlightenment of many more.God willing, someday we'll have ID and creationism courses in the universities to further enlighten students like Christine. This story shows that ID is ripe for the universites. Students will be seeking enlightenment. This young lady heard testimony of several scientists, and now she is beginning to see the light!