How do we evaluate what someone thinks? What is the goal of the academic community and experience? How do we meaningfully communicate about reality and ourselves?
Many questions have come to my mind when thinking about my collegiate experience thus far.
My studies have been limited. I teach English to international students. I study the topic that I teach. I don’t understand fully the complexities of an architectural design or the steps to a complicated dance. I don’t comprehend the manner in which electronics are engineered or the numerous computer languages.
I most definitely don’t understand molecular biology or biochemistry in their complexities, but there are those who do. And on the issue of the origins of life, sometimes they even disagree.
Case in point are the lectures on campus Monday and Tuesday regarding Darwinian natural selection and the idea of intelligent design.
Regardless of the irritated blustering of the naturalists populating OU’s Sam Noble Museum of Natural History, the “pseudoscience” of what the members of the Discovery Institute are engaging in seems to be what actually falls under a historical definition of science, observing natural phenomena (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion or the human cell) and making inferences from that data.
Even if rejected initially (ask Copernicus about scientific consensus), eventually more evidence will surface about the origins of mass amounts of information. The information itself is irrespective of religious conviction.
If popular biologists like Richard Dawkins can study what he himself describes in his book “The God Delusion” as “apparent design” in nature and then reject it, making the inference that God does not exist because Darwinian natural selection can explain all human complexity, this is a troubling dichotomy.
On one hand, the naturalist biologists are asserting that science has proven the “truth” of the macroevolution of species. They conclude that no non-natural cause could have caused it.
But who is making the truth statement here?
Science itself has no grounds for making truth statements, only hypothesizing on what reality appears to be. As such, if opposing ideas about the interpretation of information surface (some by the religiously-driven, others certainly not), I think I should at least listen to them.
On the other hand, we have the intelligent design proponents advocating that observable information in nature comes from a mind or intelligence rather than purely naturalistic causes. They explain the origin of matter and information itself as having to originate from a mind rather than purely naturalistic explanations previously thought to be law.
This comparison is further troubling in statistics on campus.
As I try to evaluate the previous events on campus related to science and the overwhelming spirit of the day on campus, I am fascinated to find that while the intelligent design and evolution awareness group has brought in a single event to the OU museum (back in February), there have been or will be 29 campus events championing the cause and findings of Charles Darwin this year alone. Hardly a case of giving dissent an opportunity to speak, eh?
And even as another event is planned for Tuesday (the screening of a new film, “Darwin’s Dilemma”), the museum has responded with free admission and a separate lecture prior to the screening titled “The Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale: No Dilemma for Darwin.”
Even for a film screening discussing the possibility that natural selection doesn’t explain the complexity of the Cambrian fossil record, everybody gets up in arms.
As such, I am very interested to attend both events on campus. I want to see how the establishment addresses the issue of fossils and human DNA. I want very much to see if the arguments of those in the intelligent design camp are actually “pseudoscience” or not.
But perhaps most of all, I want to see how they interact with each other.
To have some sort of meaningful discussion of these things requires that we make clear our presuppositions about the nature of reality and life. No one is outside the realm of bias. We’re all influenced, but how we get past that, I think, determines how we can look at the information presented to us.
We, as college students, aren’t stupid or ignorant. Even though I don’t understand all of the terminology doesn’t mean I can’t think deeply and discuss meaningfully the implications of scientific findings, be they religious or non.
Let’s see how these events go and evaluate from there, not the reverse. I’m an English teacher. You may be an architect. But we all might see our undergirding beliefs surface if we could at least rationally discuss this.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
ab167 2 years, 7 months ago
You claim the Discovery Institute is practicing "science" which you define as "observing natural phenomena (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion or the human cell) and making inferences from that data." Neglecting the fact that humans are not made of "human cell[s]" but rather a myriad of different kinds of cells (which, coincidentally appear in other animals, too, ZOMG EVOLUTION), does not the fact that the inferences made from "natural phenomena" are SUPERnatural throw a wrench in this hypothesis?
And as a person who both believes in evolution and loathes Richard Dawkins, I take offense at your insinuation that he is synechdochal for the multitudes of people who accept evolution. The God Delusion isn't science, it's metaphysics, so you are right about that, I suppose. However, this has nothing to do with the credibility of actual evolutionary biology.
You compare the numbers of Darwin events and anti-Darwin (or supposedly even-handed) events as if this proves that evil evolutionists are trying to shut down ID events. I am quite certain that the IDEA club is allowed to hold as many events as they want. And, as I am sure you know, this year is Darwin's 200th birthday (and the 150th anniversary of Origin), hence the large number of events.
RE: the admittedly passive aggressive decision of the Sam Noble Museum to actively counter the IDEA club event. Is it not equally passive aggressive for IDEA club to hold their event at an institution so ideological opposed to it? It is something of a slap in the face to the institution, especially since the museum faced criticism for the last Creationist/ID/whatever event that was held there, because people assumed they endorsed it.
It is not difficult to divine that you have religious concerns tied up in this debate. That's fine, I guess, but what people should acknowledge is that faith and science are not always compatible. If they were, then faith would cease to be. If you want to believe a literal Genesis account (or a semi-biblical version of ID), then go ahead. But it is a matter of FAITH that does not change the observable scientific evidence.
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
You think dissent from Darwinism should be tolerated. You are therefore a complete moron and should not be listened to.
ston9794 2 years, 7 months ago
There's no need to keep an open mind to ID because it has created a false dichotomy to stir up debate where no debate is needed.
The arguments for DNA and fossils are the same recycled arguments again and again. DNA is too complex to happen naturally, if you put all the parts of a model car in a box and shake it, you'll never get a functioning car! There's no "missing links" in the fossil record! (even though there are)
I don't understand why there being more Darwin events is "hardly a case of giving dissent an opportunity to speak." It's not like ID groups try to book an event and the Darwin club rushes in a steals the time slot away from them.... maybe the Discovery Institute is too busy trying to drive that wedge into science at every other school in the country.
I have a real hard time keeping an open mind to an institution whose goals include: 'reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God."' (see the Wedge Document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_st...)
ID isn't about academic freedom and the sharing of ideas, it's an underhanded attempt to remove actual science from schools and replace it with a methodology consistent with the Discovery Institutes's own world views.
soonerstaff 2 years, 7 months ago
HEY! Let's keep an OPEN MIND about GRAVITY too. While we're at it, maybe we should keep an open mind that the earth MIGHT BE flat???
Supersooner 2 years, 8 months ago
Why keep an open mind? We know we didn't come from no damn monkeys! You find any references to monkeys in the Bible? Why are we even debating these commie heathens?
dio 2 years, 8 months ago
ID only thrives where people have a limited knowledge of biology (and preferably in religion-infested areas).
Intelligent Falling should make a killing among people with a limited knowledge of physics...
mythman 2 years, 7 months ago
I usually find that when someone tells me to have an "open mind" they really mean that I should accept their arguments without question. Unfortunately, ID doesn't stand up too well to scrutiny. Remember Kitzmiller v. Dover.
briareus 2 years, 7 months ago
There is nothing wrong with intelligent design as a theory. After all, the universe is ordered by natural law. There is just no way to postulate design by a supernatural being as a scientific hypothesis.
JJanowiak 2 years, 7 months ago
The problem here is that while you're not stupid or ignorant, if you did understand more of the terminology then you wouldn't be saying things about religious scientific findings. Being open-minded (the general theme of your past few columns) is admirable and good but you shouldn't pretend to be open-minded to everything. If every religious group out there told you that god loved homosexuals but you felt like maybe these Westboro folks had something to say, we'd call you crazy. So why is this situation different when there's complete consensus and every single paper on Pubmed dealing with evolution endorses the theory?
jason 2 years, 7 months ago
Thanks for bringing Stephen Meyer to the campus for the lecture.
I have been interested in these arguments for 30 years and it was worth the 4 hour drive from Borger, Texas to listen to Dr. Meyer's position. I would much rather evaluate the evidence myself and decide whether the arguments are valid than to have someone decide the issue for me.
ID is gaining support among many scientists because information creation, storage, retrieval, and processing within each living cell screams for an intelligent agent.
Frankly, the idea that these information systems are the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection is laughable.
Here are about 1,000 scientists who also doubt the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism to bring these systems into existence.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Thanks, O.U., for the lecture!
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
dio, I don't suppose you're lacking knowledge of the daily, because you don't seem to be keen on Intelligent Commenting. But, seriously, quit with the blanket statements and make an argument for once.
Supersooner, if you are going for a wildly unfair caricature, you should at least change "eferences to monkeys" to "talk uh munkys."
ston9794, "DNA is too complex to happen naturally," - That is exactly the case documentary on the cambrian explosion was making... or, perhaps it is a popularized caricature of come of ID's arguments used as anti-ID propaganda.
JJanowiak, I believe that the editor creates the title - I'm not sure 'open-minded' was the best terminology and am tempted to agree with you, depending on what is meant by 'open mind.' BTW, "complete consensus"? And, does consensus determine science or truth?
ab167, " faith and science are not always compatible. If they were, then faith would cease to be." I suppose you probably hold to a different definition of faith than I do... You seem to hold to a strange view of faith and reason...
mythman, referring to the Dover trial - great reason for not coming to see the documentary - because of a court ruling...
Ducky 2 years, 7 months ago
www.dictionary.com
Religion –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Science -noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
This entire discussion is uttery pointless because it can never be resolved. Religion is based on faith in the unseen and one is based on physical evidence. Striving to find intersections between the two only weakens both.
Remember when Jesus' followers asked him to give them a sign of his authenticity? How did he respond? You don't get physical evidence in religion; it isn't part of the deal. It is based on faith. That's the whole point.
mythman 2 years, 7 months ago
"great reason for not coming to see the documentary - because of a court ruling..."
I said ID doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and as an example I cited the court case where Cdesign Proponentsists tried and failed. I don't get where I said not to go to a documentary.
JosieWales 2 years, 7 months ago
Ducky,
"You don't get physical evidence in religion; it isn't part of the deal. It is based on faith."
... Which Bible are you reading? The one I'm thinking of actually tells of many signs and wonders (ie, physical evidence) that were performed not just by Jesus, but also by his disciples.
Considering that the entire New Testament harmoniously teaches that Jesus is the incarnation of the living God, His very existence was not only "physical evidence" for, but also physical action and intervention by the Creator of the universe on behalf of mankind.
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@BrianCBiggs
If you make some Intelligent Reasoning then you will see my argument. Oups, did I just say reason? Well, then forget about it.
jason 2 years, 7 months ago
Hmmm....
I have Darwinian evolution telling me that the complex information systems operating in living cells were created by random mutations filtered by natural selection. The complexity of the information only appears to be intelligently designed, design is an illusion.
Intelligent Design argues that the information systems in living cells, which create, store, and process digital information are the result of an intelligent agent because all evidence points to intelligence as source of information.
If I look at each response to this Opinion, methinks intelligence used a 26 letter code to specify the information every time.
I think I know which argument is best supported here.
Ducky 2 years, 7 months ago
JosieWales,
Do you personally have physical evidence that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? (Note: you cannot submit your personal beliefs as proof. You believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That's wonderful, but your belief isn't proof that it is true.)
No, you absolutely do not. Not one shred. That fact that Jesus Christ lived is not proof that he was divine. The fact that the Bible makes the claim that he performed miraculous acts is also not proof that he was divine. That means that you must accept this on faith alone. I'm not saying that there is anything at all wrong with that. I'm just saying that you can't prove it....and I think that is great, a religion based on proof is a lazy person's religion. In my opinion, if you need proof to have faith, you are not a true believer.
Some would say that faith is an intellectual weakness, but I disagree. I have nothing wrong with people believing in things through faith. However, it is not science; it is faith, a completey different system of thinking than science. You err when you confuse the two or try to mix them; they are fundamentally different ways of thinking. You don't get proof to back faith; proof is required for science. Furthermore, when science and religion are mixed, both end up being weakened and damaged.
I'm also not saying that you are wrong, that the Bible is untrue, that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus is not his incarnate son (so chill). I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying that you cannot prove with physical evidence that any of these are true. It is something that you have to accept based on faith, because there isn't a single shred of physical evidence anywhere to support it.
Arguments like the one resulting from the article are idiotic because there is no possible way to prove that God exists (ok, idiotic may be a bit harsh, but they are definitely redundant and a waste of time). It is something that you accept through FAITH, which, by its very defintion, is completely and totally not dependent upon reason or proof. I would argue that atheism is based on faith as well because there is not a single shred of evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, and atheism is an active belief system (unlike agnosticism, which is solely scientific).
By the way, nothing that I have said suggest that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Think about it.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
mythman, you are correct, what I said didn't make sense and I apologize. I wrote that at about 2 in the morning and I don't know what was going through my mind when I addressed you.