Christian Post
06-25-07
ID Proponents Applaud Darwinist's Open-Mindedness
Doug Huntington
Christian Post Reporter
Scientists from a major pro-intelligent design (ID) think tank praised a Darwinist
this past Friday over an article he wrote on their controversial concept.
In the article published in The Christian Century, J. Scott Turner, faculty of the
SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry in Syracuse, N.Y., scolded
his colleagues over their reactionary stance against ID thought – which argues
that life is a result of a “designer.”
Scientists at the Discovery Institute, a grouping of ID advocates, hope that the
Darwinist’s article will help open the door for other evolutionists to be less closeminded about ID.
“Hopefully Turner’s criticisms will strike a chord with Darwinists who might
otherwise close their ears to the argument for academic freedom for IDproponents,” explained Casey Luskin, co-founder of the Intelligent Design and
Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, on the Discovery Center website. “Given
the intolerance towards ID-sympathy that Turner describes, let us also hope that
the chord is heard but the strummer is not harmed.”
While Turner is very open with his stance about the issue and disagrees with ID
science, he sees the negative backlash given to supporters of the issue and feels
that it is unwarranted. Instead, he argues that science is meant to be discussed
with arguments on both sides rather than one side being silenced completely.
“[The] modern academy [is] a tedious intellectual monoculture where conformity
and not contention is the norm,” wrote the SUNY professor. “Reflexive hostility to
ID is largely cut from that cloth; some ID critics are not so much worried about a
hurtful climate as they are about a climate in which people are free to disagree
with them."
There have been several cases throughout the year in which supporters of ID
thought have been strongly affected for their beliefs by academic and scientific
institutions.
The most recent publicized incident involved astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez,
author of pro-ID book The Privileged Planet, who was denied tenure at Iowa
State University (ISU). The professor had strong credentials and had exceeded
the typical number of peer reviewed journals needed to receive tenure at the
university. He had written 68 papers, 53 more than the ISU’s required 15.
He also had the highest score among the entire faculty in the astronomy
department ,according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System
(ADS), which calculates the scientific impact of scientists in astronomy.
Several professors at the school even admitted that his ID belief, which Gonzales
never taught to students, was the main factor in denying him tenure.
“It’s a sad day for science and free inquiry when tenure is denied to a scientist of
Guillermo Gonzalez’s caliber,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the
Center for Science & Culture for the ID think tank Discovery Institute, on the
Discovery Center website.
ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, who denied Gonzalez’s appeal for tenure,
“has clearly demonstrated that academic freedom is not as important to Iowa
State University as passing an ideological litmus test,” he added.
In Turner’s article, the Darwinist addressed these problems against ID
proponents, and how they are unfairly treated. He personally cited an incident
involving hostility against Richard Sternberg, former editor of the scientific journal
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, from scientists at the
Smithsonian Institute.
“It would be comforting if one could dismiss such incidents as the actions of a
misguided few. But the intolerance that gave rise to the Sternberg debacle is all
too common,” wrote Turner. “The attitudes on display there, which at the extreme
verge on antireligious hysteria, can hardly be squared with the relatively
innocuous (even if wrong-headed) ideas that sit at ID's core.”
As another main point, Turner explained the role that ID can play in education
and that it should not so easily be thrown away as bad theory. While evolution
has a place in the classroom, he explained that ID also has beneficial traits that
can lead to more balanced science, even if it is not all correct.
“[I]ntelligent design … is one of multiple emerging critiques of materialism in
science and evolution. Unfortunately, many scientists fail to see this, preferring
the gross caricature that ID is simply ‘stealth creationism,’” added the Syracuse
professor. “[But] ID is not popular because the stupid or ignorant like it, but
because neo-Darwinism's principled banishment of purpose seems less
defensible each passing day.”
BACK TO TOP Print E-mail