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

Let's take a different (hypothetical) example. If Gonzales had written a
book on why he, as a scientist, believes that miraculous healing is real,
and points to an Intelligent Healer. He gives evidence of real examples
where (he believes) faith is the most likely and logical explanation for all
sorts of documented healings, the fact that some scientific studies have
shown prayer to increase the chances on faster recovery, etc. His book
deals with scientific and medical fields, from an aspect of faith that these
evidences support a theistic view, and his book is then used by "faith
healing" religious groups to popularize their particular views.

Then the professors of the medical college sign a petition drive stating
their "concern with the negative impact of faith healing on the integrity of
science and the medical college"; that they "reject all attempts to
represent faith as having any bearing on the science of medicine"; that such
claims are "based on selection of arbitrary examples, unverifiable
assertions of healings, and abandonment of good medical practice, which can
be explained without reference to any supernatural being"; "claims of faith
healing are within the realm of faith and not good medical practice"; "and
we thus urge all faculty members [nudge, nudge!] to reject any efforts to
portray faith as a component of medical healing"; and then circulate this
statement to the "relevant media" for publication.

They certainly have the academic freedom and 1st Amendment rights to
circulate anything they desire to print. But what are they contending
against? They are contending against the right of one professor to write on
a subject expressing his faith which touches on areas of medicine but also a
belief that God impacts our world in ways that are real and observable. For
_his_ exercise of 1st Amendment rights, he is slapped down by his employer
and berated through the media and his colleagues, and told that you as a
"faculty member" are encouraged not to share your faith in the context of
medicine (or science) -- save that for Sunday morning church, but not
publicly by writing a popular book which might make our university look bad.
Regardless of his attempts to frame the argument in terms of a real medical
(scientific) context, why do you not see this as a clear example of
persecution over one's religious beliefs?

It reminds me of 1Cor 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that
perish, foolishness..." By the same token, he had to have known that his
publication would infuriate some of his colleagues, so he probably could
have known to expect some persecution over it.

I don't know all the situation, and whether he was involved in teaching ID
at the university, or whether it simply had to do with his publication. I
agree there could certainly be abuses involved with promoting "faith
healing" as a substitute for good medical practice. Some "faith healing"
claims (or ID positions) may be non-scientific; they may be flat out wrong,
or they may belong properly in the category of faith. But certainly there
is also evidence out there which demands consideration of something beyond
this material universe. What is the justification for a group of professors
ganging up on another professor with a blanket denunciation, simply because
he publishes a book which is about faith and science which they don't like?

My example likened their "abandonment of methodological naturalism" with a
hypothetical "abandonment of good medical practice". I think the comparison
is fair. Methodological naturalism is seen as good scientific practice, and
even most believing scientists agree. Why is an expression of faith
necessarily damaging to or contradictory of good scientific practice? I
thought ASA was all about promoting faith along with good science, not
relegating them to separate corners where scientists aren't allowed to speak
of faith. Yes, bad science in ID should be exposed in a loving and
evidence-based manner, but how can others expose and expand on such
arguments (in a faith promoting way) if they aren't allowed to express the
beliefs publicly in the first place?

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:47 AM
To: Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Janice Matchett; David Opderbeck
Subject: Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the
Precautionary Principle

So what you consider to be outrageous is that the petition was organized by
an atheist or by someone who is a faculty advisor to a campus atheist
organization? Remember that intelligent design is making the (erroneous)
claim that it is scientific and that these scientific findings point to a
'designer' (wink wink). Many science organizations have rejected ID as
scientifically relevant. So what if Avalos had been a Christian? Would that
have made a difference to the petition? When atheists start a movement which
insists that science can show the absence of a designer, it is time to
object similarly to such an abuse of science. Privileged Planet has become
an important marketing tool for the Intelligent Design movement, intent on
'teaching the controversy' which is mere code language. So what about
Avalos's academic freedom to expose bad science?

Gonzalez

<quote>"I didn't expect this level of vitriol," he says after hanging up.
"This level of intense hostility, just knee-jerk emotional response from
people. People have strong convictions that you can't bring God into
science. But I don't bring God into science. I've looked out at nature and
discovered this pattern, based on empirical evidence. . . . It obviously
calls for a different explanation."</quote>

And Gonzalez claims that this explanation is 'God' based on the arguments of
Intelligent Design. Or is that not obvious? So the question is: Are these
arguments based on science and scientific arguments. Many scientists have
come to the conclusion that these findings are vacuous and that intelligent
design fails to be scientifically relevant. Combine this with the attempts
by the Discovery Institute to promote this 'research' as evidence why
intelligent design should be taught or could be taught in schools and one
can either ignore this or take a stance. Many scientific organizations and
even universities have done so.

A witchhunt? I am not sure.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 27 07:54:02 2007