Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

On 1/26/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 01/26/07 9:26 AM >>>writes:
>
> One of my more proud moments in arguing the vacuity behind the
> Privileged Planet book by Gonzalez et al.
> It gives me great pleasure that Janice is familiarizing herself with
> my writings. Some spurious correlation, some envisioned 'purpose' and
> analogies and I too can make specious intelligent design claims.
>
> Ted dissents:
> I have to admit, I like "The Privileged Planet" in book version (I am less
> enthusiastic about the DVD, which does its best to mask the old
> earth/universe that Gonzalez and Richards so explicitly accept in their
> book) a great deal.

I admit that there are some redeeming qualities to Gonzalez's book
however, the design inference drawn from it is specious as it relies
on poorly framed concepts of correlation.

< Gonzalez himself was the victim of a genuine witch hunt at Iowa State, in
> which an atheist professor of religion (a former pentecostal, I think, with
> a Harvard PhD) organized an effort to have the facutly officially disown the
> book's conclusions--as if the Oxford faculty would officially disown Dawkins
> or Atkins, or the Cornell faculty disown Sagan. Now *that* is a nice
> example of the politics of science, in the worst way, IMO. I wrote a letter
> to the Iowa State president on behalf of our fellow ASA member, Guillermo
> Gonzlalez, and offered to show up in Ames to appear opposite his tormentors,
> if it would be productive.

A witchhunt? Let's see what really happened. In fact, as far as I have
been able to determine, the petition neither addressed the book nor
Gonzalez directly, although Gonzalez was quick to complain.
<quote>Gonzalez says he's being "viciously attacked," "intimidated,"
and it's created a "hostile work environment" (sound familiar,
anyone?).
</quote>

The problem is that ID proponents argue that ID is a scientific theory
or at least have scientific relevance.

<quote>
INVITATION TO SIGN THE STATEMENT

Dear colleagues,
Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science
education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at
Iowa State University.

Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of
Intelligent Design on the integrity of science and on our university,
please consider signing the "Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa
State University Faculty" below. If you agree with this Statement, add
your name and affiliation at the bottom and return it to Prof. Hector
Avalos at [email]. Prof. Avalos will compile the full list of
co-signers, and the Statement will be sent for publication in relevant
media (e.g., ISU Daily, Ames Tribune) as well as sent to relevant
administrators by August 26, 2005.

Thanks,
Hector Avalos,
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and
Director of the U.S. Latino/a Studies Program

Jim Colbert
Associate Professor
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Organismal Biology
Undergraduate Biology Program Coordinator

Michael P. Clough
Associate Professor
Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education

STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY

We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject
all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.

Advocates of Intelligent Design claim that the position of our planet
and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such
that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or
designer of the universe. However, such claims are premised on (1) the
arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a
designer; (2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of
that designer; and (3) an abandonment by science of methodological
naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be
explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the
foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains
many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually
understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a
supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious
faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science. We,
therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our
university of "science and technology," convey to students and the
general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science,
and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.
</quote>

> (and women). Following the ealier book "Rare Earth" (and I think Gonzalez
> may have a connection with the author of that one), they point out just how
> unlikely it is to have suitable physical environments for complex living
> things, such that we should not really be surprised if we are the only
> inhabitable planet in the Milky Way. We can't "know" whether this is on
> target or not, obviously--unless the little green guys show up on our
> doorsteps--but it strikes me as a very reasonable argument, in a field where
> reasonable arguments are sometimes hard to find.

Gonzalez worked at the University of Washington where one of the
authors of Rare Earth is a professor (Peter Ward)

See http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html Victor
Stenger's article for more information.

Ward is on the record as disliking the conclusions of PP (calling it
rubbish) although he is highly positive about the scientific research
of Gonzalez on habitable zones.

My comments which Janice seemed to enjoy, were in response to the
fallacious claims of Gonzalez et al in PP.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 26 11:08:15 2007