Talk:Intelligent design and academic freedom/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

How horrible

How horrible. Next thing you know, Historians will lose their jobs for teaching that the Pyramids were built by aliens, geologists won't be able to research Fun:Scientific Geoterrapinism, and the medical department won't be able to continue their research into Phrenology! --Gulik 01:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Wedge Document

I've added a link to the wedge document here as it seems appropriate to show where the desire to to teach ID is coming from. --Bob_M (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I've made statements similar to Dr. Dini. I have written to newspapers, etc, that I would have strong reservations about giving positions to students without a strong biology education, including a good understanding of evolution. In fact there was a movement, I think started at SciAm, during the first Kansas School Board debacle to do just that. It is not a censorship of beliefs--if someone doesn't understand evolution, they really aren't fit to be in the biological sciences.User:PalMD

While Dr. Dini has toned down and rephrased his requirements, he was not simply demanding that students be able to explain the theory of evolution and its scientific basis...he became infamous for requiring students to affirm a belief in the theory of evolution, moving from the realm of science to the realm of metaphysics or doctrine. Requiring an effective oath and affirmation in a belief in the theory of evolution is what landed Dr. Dini in hot water. Simply stating Dr. Dini's modified stance after he received so much flak (and initially, he was rather adament that the effective oath and affirmation were perfectly acceptable, though he did subsequently back down after national pressure became too intense) is not the complete story. The complete story, and the one pertainent to this article, is that Dr. Dini required more than an understanding and ability to explain; he initially required a de facto religious test. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:51, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Labels

Why is it ok to label Dr. Scott as an evolutionary propagandist and Dr. Dini as an evolutionist but fail to label the rest of the group with things such as creationist or Biochemistry professor who has published little on evolution but continues to write books about the topic for financial gain because his creditability has been tarnished in the scientific community due to his use of outdated research as support for his claims?--TimS 07:45, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

It's not ok, "propagandist" is an extraneous word. human^{be in} 11:00, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Calling a spade a spade is not extraneous. Dr. Scott is a propagandist for evolution. She heads an organization who propagandizes for evolution. While you might believe, depending on your POV, that the word propaganda is a loaded term, it is accurate. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:52, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

One way to level the jargon playing field is to use the same standard for "both sides" - either call them both what their opponents call them, or call them both what they prefer to be called. human^{be in} 15:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

As such, why leave out the other terms for the non-evolutionists?--TimS 12:12, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey, why remove edit to 'evolutionists'? It is generally considered an inflammatory word by many evolutionary biologists, etc. MyaR 13:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

It wasn't me. It was done in this edit. You may revert the edit to 'evolutionists' it in my opinion. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:05, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I just reinserted your edit MyaR. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:07, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I wasn't talking to you!!! :) Nah, I'll let others, I don't claim to speak for all. And I was sloppy and there are a couple more. (I shouldn't try to actually edit anything at work.) MyaR 14:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Nature refs

While Nature is certainly a well respected publication, I suspect quote mining, since it is not possible to read the references without going to a university library. Does the editor who listed these refs have access to copies on Nature on line or physically? I'd like to see what is being quoted here, not just blank links. human^{be in} 11:00, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I may be wrong, but I thought part of the article was made available on the other nature links. I think everything I contributed were backed up on the publically available links provided. I do recall adding one link to the original article, but assumed the other links (assumed to be excerpts of the unavailable artile) were taken from the original article. I may have been wrong on this last point. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Ah, ok, I now clicked on all four, and three "work". Footnote #4 (the first one, that I clicked on to read up) is a dead end, so I think it's referent should be moved here until it can be cited usefully. human^{be in} 12:02, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I indented your comment, hope you don't mind. I would agree with you only if you think the other links were not excerpts of the original article. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:04, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

By the way, if anybody wants to educate a creationist by paying for a subscription to Nature, I would eagerly read their articles. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:06, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Heart, are you a student? I believe that Nature does offer a discount for students. I would offer you my back issues but the NIH officaly owns them.--TimS 12:14, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

No, I am no longer a student at a university; though I consider myself a lifelong student in general, it probably does not qualify. Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

HG, if you cannot access "Nature" to cite-check it you should not cite it. -AmesG 14:47, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Biology Students want to study Intelligent Design and/or Creationism

Not really sure what the results of that poll are supposed to indicate. Given that "studying" creation science must be the easiest way to attain easy course credits (God did it!) and that "Intelligent Design" must rank a pretty close second (a nonspecific designer did it!), it could be that the students polled are merely lazy. Or maybe they appreciate a good joke and an opportunity to heckle for 3 hours. You'd probably get a much bigger percentage of students wanting to study football or pornography, that's not to say we should run courses in these things. Or should we...?!! Trashbat 08:37, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Nothing wrong with studying the stuff...as long as you don't get science credits for it.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:54, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Seriously. Since when did student opinions matter for course content, anyway? A similar proportion of students probably would've voted for less algebra and more study hall (math's hard! and we need a naptime!), that doesn't mean they should've gotten it. MyaR 09:10, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Something about the poll bothered me so I looked into it a bit further. Sal Cordova (Of uncommondescent fame, a Dembski man) was the person who submitted the poll to James Madison University in Harrisonburg VA. I know this university, I have a timeshare at Massenutten Resort about 10 minutes from Harrisonburg. Its student base consists of mostly southern conservatives. The poll was only out of 331 students in which 70 percent voted to learn more while 75% of the bio majors in that 331 said they wanted to learn more. Sal is known for presenting the numbers as something more pleasing to the eye. No where was the number of biomajors actualy recorded out of the polling population, it could have been as little as 4 students who decided to answer the poll. Perhaps I should point out that this poll was loaded from the begining, Harrisonburg is a very conservative town, the univerity is conservative in background plus the university has a very small minority population which I tend to believe can cause "group think" in the student body. Perhaps if the poll was conducted at University of Maryland or UC Berkley it might have more of an impact. 331 is not a large enough polling population to give valid statistical data for a typical University enrollment, most public Universities have enrollments of 50K+. The 75% of Biomajors is very misleading, it is not a valid statement with the way this poll was conducted.--TimS 10:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

It is surprising to me that so many people hear toe the NCSE line. The poll is probably not valid, but I am not a pollster. Are you a pollster, or has this "poll" actually been scrutinized by others with qualifications to scrutinize polls. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:56, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

To answer your question Heart of Gold, yes, I am trained to determine the significance of statistical data retrieved by a questionnaire (poll). Just to make it easier to understand you can use basic statistics to see that the population is not large enough to make the claim significant.--TimS 12:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

'Toe the line'? This is not an appeal-to-authority issue. I think that's really the fundamental problem here. MyaR 12:00, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think TimS has pretty much summed up a lot of what is potentially misleading about the poll results. My initial comment was pretty flippant but made the point that, without additional information, the poll results are pretty meaningless in themselves. And when it comes to twisting statistics (or analysis as I describe it to my clients), I could probably admit to knowing a thing or two. But then I might get roped into writing sensible articles...XD Trashbat 12:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

It's also a little suspcious that students did the poll... Was the sampling random, or did they just ask people between classes? How did the students ask the question? Also having three answers on ID/Creationism vs. one against seems a bit dubious as well. Was there a control question about other types of courses. Crap, crap, crap, I say! Sterile 12:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think such complaints would be valid if the poll were represented as being a scientific poll. Otherwise, sounds like a mosquito buzzing. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:29, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, if it is not being presented as scientific, it needs to be called an "unscientific poll". Which also means "meaningless". human^{be in} 12:33, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree with your implication that unscientific is a synonym for meaningless. I love my wife, and my love is not scientific, but it is meaningful. To further bolster my position, I think you agree that future scientific experiments are often based on past unscientific observations. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:37, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

To be clear, Human meant that unscientific info is meaningless for science: one would expect this tautology to be self-evident, but apparently, to IDers, it's not. Materialistic science speaks not of the divine, and never will, nor should it try to; nor should the divine be offered as science w/o being testable.-AmesG 14:43, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Moving cut text here for rework

“”The Discovery Institute took up the case as an act of prejudice against an ID supporter in academia. The main argument by the DI that Gonzalez should have received tenure was that he had significantly more publications than was needed at Iowa State<r ef>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/university_president_denies_ap.html</r ef>. However, the number quoted by the DI is the total number of publications in Gonzalez's career (only those publications written while at Iowa State count), and the standards for tenure include MUCH more than a publication record.

The above sentence appears to me to be typical evolutionist (read: TalkOrigins) fallacy. However, the main point is valid. I recommend that it be reworked to indciate that his publication record was inferior without referencing the DI's stance on the matter. (As far as I know, at best, DI is a interested but unrelated party. If Gonzalez is a DI member, or if Gonzalez actively sought help from DI, or if Gonzalez indicated that he appreciates DI's chiming in on his situation, I am wrong in removing this, but it should be mentioned. Otherwise, it appears to be a smear of Gonzalez by juxtaposing his situation with the unsought help of DI). Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:42, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, regarding "DI is a interested but unrelated party" isn't DI pretty much the public face of ID? By the way, please read my note about Nature cites above, ok? Thanks for starting an interesting article! human^{be in} 11:47, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

"Isn't DI pretty much the public face of ID?" I don't know. I am not associated with DI, and up until now, try to only consider arguments, not relationiships. (Except with the NCSE and TalkOrigins, which are prima facie Satanic cults). Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:00, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

You don't know? Well, it is. Just as the ACLU is the public face of communism and neo-Nazi marchers in the US. human^{be in} 12:05, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

The ACLU does defend a disproportionate number of left leaning cases, but I would call them propagandists for left leaning liberty. The NCSE only defends and promote evolution. They don't seem to be too interested in defending academic freedom in general. Mostly, it seems to me, they are *loud* when it comes to anything that threatens the "holy" TOE. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:09, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

DI are propagandists for "Intelligent Design", and are fundamentalist-leaning attackers of science. ID is the only thing they promote and defend. They don't seem to be too interested in defending academic freedom in general. Mostly, it seems to me, they are *loud* when it comes to anything that threatens the "holy" Designer. human^{be in} 12:13, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think I knew how you felt before this latest remark. But thanks anyway:) Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:30, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

<-- It's not about feelings, we are trying to get at the facts one way or another. "The use of the term "intelligent design" began in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes titled Of Pandas and People. The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" (footnote numbers deleted) human^{be in} 12:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Grant money

“”Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.

Journalists *may* be mis-stating this, it seems to me. For example, do tenured professors have better success than untenured professors at attracting grant money? And, since most evolutionist propagandists are also liberal, don't they usually object to academics being corrupted by how much corporate and government grant money is brought in? (I.e., the critique is disengenuous). For the time being, I am leaving it in. At the University I attended, there was huge variability both in the number of publications and amount of grant money professor to professor, with established tenured professors having better luck with the grant money. Even so, professors who brought in $0 were still valued for their ability to teach and produce outstanding students. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:46, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

"most evolutionist propagandists are also liberal" - you're running roughshod over Ashfly's copyright there. By the way, are we to call DI "Intelligent designist propagandists"? human^{be in} 11:49, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I have no objection to calling DI "Intelligent designist propagandists" or something similar. It would probably be accurate, though I don't know too much about DI. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:01, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I would prefer to not use the "ist" and not use the word "propagandist" in either case. By the way, don't you think you should research the DI if you're writing an article about their pet project? ID is not a movement - it is a project of the DI that is represented as being as diffuse as possible. human^{be in} 12:35, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

The $1.3 million figure was the average that was brought in BEFORE reaching tenure. As far as whether or not we like the fact that grant money counts a HUGE deal it doesn't change the fact that it does. If you are a professor at a research university your primary role is that of a principle investigator. You are basically expected to be able to fund a productive laboratory. Thats the way it works. It maybe unfair that is used as the primary criteria but thats not the question, the question is if Gonzalez was treated differently than anyone else, and the answer is no. $20k is not going to get you tenure at a research institute. Gonzalez will be much happier at a university that focuses on teaching rather than research. 24.141.169.255 12:49, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Collaboration

While I may not agree with a lot of stuff here, there is active collaboration taking place, and that is encouraging. Dialog is good--keep it up folks! User:PalMD

BTW, I sense a side-by-side article coming out of this at some point...like FSM and academic freedom or some such.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 12:15, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow

Now this edit surprises me. Careful, Human, or Dr. Scott will get you. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:39, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

What, do you doubt its veracity? Anyone in academia will affirm that, I think it was Dershowitz who said it, "the battles are bloodiest when the stakes are lowest" (paraphrased), referring to academic turf wars and power struggles. human^{be in} 12:54, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I think you're bending way over backwards there, human, in 'respecting' religion and/or the religious. I would not have asked any of the Chomskyan syntacticians in my undergrad program for a grad school recommendation, and they probably would've felt they couldn't in good conscience give me one. (My syntax final exam was essentially a screed on why Chomsky was a dumbass as a linguist, even if some interesting things had come out of it.) A letter of recommendation is a personal recommendation of a student, saying that the writer believes they are an excellent candidate for further education. If Dr. Dini doesn't think the student is a good candidate, he shouldn't write them a rec. I think he was behaving very ethically here, myself. MyaR 13:41, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I was respecting religion? My bad... human^{be in} 20:42, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree MyaR. I have and would write letters of recommendation for people who hold differing viewpoints than mine. The POV of the subject is usually orthogonal as to whether or not they are capable in whatever field. On the other hand, if I think their POV is wrong, and central, I might also mention that in the recommendation letter....tactfully, of course. Using your logic, protestants should not vote for catholics, etc. Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:50, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

HG, you are, I'm sure, in the majority of college professors (didn't know you were one!). But many also have their idiosyncracies, and, as weird as some may be, they are within their rights. I don't think this particular issue counts as one of "academic freedom". Just my 0.02 more... human^{be in} 20:42, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

HG, would you write a recommendation for a student that you didn't feel should be going on to higher learning? I think that's Dr. Dini's point -- if you don't support human evolution, he doesn't think you're cut out for biomedical sciences. (I'll try to think of a reasonably parallel example in my field.) While I don't know that I'd do the same in his position (and will never have to worry about that), I don't think he's in any way wrong, just trying to do his job as a teacher and mentor to the best of his ability. (And you can just call me Mya.) MyaR 21:24, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

No, I wouldn't write a recommendation for a student that I didn't feel should be going on to higher learning. But on the same token, I have had Muslim interns who were very good engineers, and one of whom I wrote a recommendation for. My criteria is whether they are sharp and dilligent, not whether they have beliefs that I find peculiar.

I knew of three computer experts who fell for the "Good times" virus hoax in 1994. Even though they should have known better, they fell for it. They were still highly competant in their field of CPU design, this one mistake not withstanding. Two of them were already tenured university professors, so they probably didn't need any more recommendation letters.

Michael Dini is a petty individual if he is judging a student's ability based on religious beliefs. Now, at least, he is giving fair warning that he is asking and expecting a "scientific" explaination. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:03, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

That's what I'm saying - he is petty. No further comment necessary? We have, what? Five or so examples of "suppresion of academic freedom"? Many illustrious academics also are reviled for some of their stands. Do we thus, bring evilution tumbling down? No. There is too much evidence for it. Monkeyley yours, human^{be in} 01:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

moved here until cite is accessible or quoted at length

• Dr. Caroline Crocker was removed from tenure track at George Mason University for sharing what she sees as flaws in evolution science.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html (subscription or institutional site license required to read this Nature article.)</ref> If the author of this line has access to the article, please include sufficient quotation to back up assertion. If not, then why was it put here and where did it come from? human^{be in} 12:51, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Added it back in with an additional reference. You need to listen to the program, though, because they seem to have cut out the other pages of the transcript. Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:46, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

academic freedom

I've extended HG's quote mine with a bit more from the same document. "The “freedom” in “academic freedom” is qualified or bounded by what can reasonably be counted as “academic.” In practice, this means that universities are best able to gauge the parameters of academic freedom and therefore must be responsible for a considerable degree of self-regulation. This autonomy includes the right of the university to determine for itself, on academic grounds, who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."--Bob_M (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

No prob, and thanks, but that was my "quote mine" - it's the first line from the WP entry, but I used their cite for it. human^{be in} 13:13, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey sorry man. Don't want to take your credit away!! Anyway, with the rest of the quote it looks pretty obvious that universities have the right - not to say the duty - to define what is academic. It's hardly surprising taht pseudoscience doesn't fit the bill.--Bob_M (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Frustration

• Behe, a so-called intelligent designer, simply seems to be trying to show that random mutations are not sufficient to create useful adaptations. How is this not science?
• Somebody seems to think that universities collectively get to decide what is and what is not science. Good thing patent clerks don't work at Universities.
• I think this is an example of using whatever weapon available to support their own ideas, instead of being objective and letting fundamental premises guide your position. (E.g., making use of the reality of money to justify a desired outcome (suppression of dissenters in the academic world) even though most liberals decry the influence of money in everything from politics to research.)

Well, I don't think I am seeing the best of intellectual honesty. Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:32, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

What do patent clerks have to do with it? Would that be an Einstein reference? Why was Einstein a patent clerk? And he's trying and failing to show that random mutations are insufficient. I can dig up references tomorrow if you want some. (Have to do somem more work now.) (And I copy-edited a little, just spelling.) MyaR 13:44, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

• There is no doubt that Behe is a dye in the wool supporter of ID. He has tried to demonstrate that claim but has failed, when his ideas are shown to be problematic he just shouts them louder, thats that where he goes from science to ideology.
• Universities get to decide what they want to teach and support as far as research departments go.
• Money makes the world go round. Thats the reality. You must be able to bring in grant money or you will not get tenure at a research university. Thats just the way it works, regardless of ones ideology.

Tmtoulouse 14:03, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Discerning intelligence

Using information theory, for example, to discern whether or not the evidence indicates an intelligent source, for example, in signals, is not pseudoscience. It is the collection of evidence. For example, the sequence (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ...) detected in a signal emanating from outerspace would be evidence of an intelligent source, and would not be pseudoscience. Holding up such a sequence as proof of an intelligent source would be reasonable, though it might not be scientific. (It could be a random source...the problem with random sources, is you cannot tell...). Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:39, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

That would be a leap. If a signal was intercepted that appeared to follow a pattern, first, natural explanations would be tested and perhaps ruled out. Then, more investigation would proceed - for instance, a simple sequence (like 1-0-11-0-1-0-11...) could be a "beacon" that says "look here". Then more "eyes" would be trained on the source to see if there was a modulated signal containing information. If there was, the popular press would call it "intelligent", while the specialists would start analyzing it from the perspective that it might be a Turing Machine, etc., etc. The path is a long and arduous one to proclaiming "this has an intelligent source". human^{be in} 13:54, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I personally think a random source would be much cooler. The likelihood of actually being able to communicate with aliens on a meaningful level is pretty small, I think. Although if a universal translator was actually possible, that would be awesome, and the intelligent source would be cooler. MyaR 13:57, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

If we were truly in possession of at least abeacon from a truly intelligent source, the odds of finding some math in the modulated signal would be high, as "we" think most intelligent life would be aware that simple math is the one thing any other intelligent life would understand. Nothing like scratching triangles in the sand to show intelligence. human^{be in} 14:29, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Well it works like this: If we detect such a signal, we can investigate it, and even though an intelligent origin may be a wild claim, it is certainly plausible within the known laws of physics, next we try to find some other evidence, such as whether or not there is a habitable planet near the source, note that whether or not we find such a planet, we have not definitively proven anything (you often can't do that in science.)

Behe, however does not follow this method properly. He screws up assuming chance can entirely be factored out (it never can), and introduces a new phenomenon that violates the known laws of physics, of course you might say the laws of physics may have to be adjusted, as happened with the introduction of QM, but the difference is that additional support for QM could be found through experimental observations, while this is clearly not the case with an intelligent designer (not falsifiable.) Assuming Behe is right, progress is stuck, no further progress will ever be made and no deeper explanation may ever be found, and that my friend is not science. MiddleMan 14:07, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

To the extent that Behe completely rules out chance (as opposed to deeming it unlikely), I agree with you. However, I guess that Behe doesn't make such bold claims. Even so, scientists often make bold claims, so even if Behe does, is it any worse than, say, "God doesn't play dice..."?Heart♥Gold ^tx 14:10, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

"God doesn't play dice..." was not a scientific claim, it was rhetorical. By the way, the QPists responded to Al with the line "Who are you to tell God what to do?" Einstein's truly bold claims, his papers, were rigorous mathematically and made predictions that could be falsified. Behe writes books for a popular audience and does the true believer talk radio circuit. human^{be in} 14:29, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Like I said, bold claims require evidence, just pointing out that one theory is wrong does not mean yours is right, Einstein tried to verify his own views through experiments and found that those experiments did not support his views (his views on QM that is, his views on relativity were correct.)

If you can propose a method of examining this designer, I'm all ears. MiddleMan 14:16, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Great debate - but shouldn't this be on the ID page? We need to reach a consensus there about whether or not ID is pseudoscience then we can refer to it as either science or pseudoscience here. Otherwise we run the risk of contradicting ourselves on different parts of the site. At the moment we call it pseudoscience under its own article and we should do so here until such time as that changes.--Bob_M (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, and I believe we can all agree that ID is not science because it presents concepts that are not falsifiable.

Because ID also tries to present these concepts as true and scientific, ID is a pseudoscience. "Science" that does not follow the scientific method is pseudoscience. MiddleMan 15:27, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I notice that we've only got the sound of crickets on the Disproving Intelligent Design page.--Bob_M (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

"If you can propose a method of examining this designer, I'm all ears." The same method for the creation of new species, genre, families, etc. Wait around, you'll find out eventually. Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:10, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

You mean like this? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_114/ai_n15855372/pg_3 MiddleMan 18:37, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Like what? I missed the part that quantified the number of generations it took, and a reporduction of the scientific experiment. Evolution is science, isn't it? Let me see the lab write up so I can reproduce the speciation. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:52, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

HG, you asked us to say what would falsify Common Descent and we did so here: Disproving Evolution. Now, there is a whole page waiting for you at Disproving Intelligent Design. So if you can prove ID is science that would be a good place to start. We answered your challenge - can you do the same?--Bob_M (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

pseudoscience

“”As universities frequently do not generally regard pseudoscience as "academic", some holders of this belief have experienced difficulties in their academic careers.

1. Academic freedom includes the right to pursue fruitless paths.
2. I know, in my field, of at least one example of what appeared to be pseudoscience that turned out to bear some fruit. (Turns out that the appearance of pseudoscience was a problem with the beholder's eyes, and not the science.). Fortunately, the university allowed the professor to pursue a path. (In this case, it probably helped that there was some grant money involved. It probably also helped that most other professors were just not as sharp as the professor who was pursuing what at first blush appeared to be pseudoscience, and in other cases this professor had already demonstrated intellecutal superiority. In this case, the professor in question was also generally very successful in bringing grant money to the university for this and other research programs.) However, even if this professor were not so successful in the grant department, he was sharp, and, fortunately, given academic freedom.
3. Some researchers appear to be very unproductive, but in the end, make great breakthroughs. (E.g., Einstein, John Nash, Jr., et al).
4. Science is not only about confirming existing scientific theories. Sometimes science makes its greatest progress when some renegade heads down other paths--paths that appear to be a waste of time to the defenders of the "scientific consensus".
5. And, often, paths that appear to be a waste of time, are a waste of time.

When I was an undergraduate, I was encouraged to pursue development of a novel algorithm to simplify boolean equations. At first blush, it appeared to be promising to one professor. Now, the mathematics involved in developing the algorithm and demonstrating its efficiency were a bit beyond my education at the time. So I had to spend three or four months learning the mathematics on my own time, in addition to my normal coursework. At the end of this path, I figured out, and this wasn't obvious when I started, that:

1. My algorithm was possible
2. It was no more efficient (in terms of number of operations) than the best exisiting and well known algorithm.
3. It turned out to be essentially the same algorithm as the exisiting algorithm, in reverse order, requiring more memory.

So, in the end, it was a fruitless path (to the field). Except I learned some advanced mathematics, and learned that it is not so easy to make innovations in my field (traversed in advance by others a lot smarter than I am.)

My point: Throwing around terms like pseudoscience and persecuting those who pursue what others deem pseudoscience on the grounds of grant money, lack of success (to date), etc., actually stifles science and appears to be religious defense of the status quo. Heart♥Gold ^tx 11:23, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Hg. Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say above, I'm confused by your position. Are you saying the statement, As universities frequently do not generally regard pseudoscience as "academic", some holders of this belief have experienced difficulties in their academic careers. is false? (If so where is it false?) Or are you saying saying in a perfect world it would be false.--Bob_M (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

BM, without agreeing or disagreeing to answer your question, I am confused by your position. Who gets to decide what is science, and how? Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:11, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Also, just to address your point more specifically, I do not believe that it has been established that those who mention ID in a classroom are promoting pseudoscience, no more than a chemistry professor who mentions that through nuclear reactions it might be possible to actually create gold from lead (a field formally known as alchemy). Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:58, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, mentioning it is one thing. Following the discovery institute's wedge strategy and trying to "teach the controversy" where none exists is another. It's not academic - it's religion by the back door. --Bob_M (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Why would this article belong in the pseudoscience category?

I remvoed it twice now. This is not an article on pseudoscience. It is an article on academic freedom (or lack thereof). Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:51, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Because the first paragraph is about ID, not academic freedom. MiddleMan 19:54, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I did not write the first paragraph as it stands now, but I think the intention of the person who did it was to provide context, not to sneak this article into the pseudoscience category. BTW, I indented and rearranged your contribution to this talk page, if you mind, my apologies. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:55, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

The article is only about academic freedom relative to one subject - and that subject is a pseudoscience. I added the definitions at the top, since it seemed to make sense to describe what both are. Other people expanded them. Also, it doesn't matter who wrote things - it's a wiki. No one "owns" an article, or even a phrase, it's a group project. If I started an article on religious freeom at US military academies, I'd expect it to be catted under, say "military" or "war" or whatever fit the MAs.

And, you may ask, why is ID a pseudoscience? Well, the article on possible ways it could be falsified still boasts nothing more than the chirping of crickets, for a quick start on why. human^{be in} 20:04, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I am one man. I am not a big ID pusher. I do have an interest, however--but not the zealous interest the NCSE has. My view has been that ID cannot be falsified, but also, per Popper, areas of eovlution cannot be falsified, as well as other areas of less controversial fields usually viewed as being scientific.

Human, I do not argue that ID cannot be briefly explained, only that the explanation was probably not intented to put this article into the category pseudoscience. It is not even science. This article is a philosophical article. I did not mean to say that others cannot contribute, I hope they do. But I really think it is extreme to put this article into the category of pseudoscience. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:08, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Again, we're not saying ID is pseudoscience because we don't like it, but because it does not follow the scientific method because it cannot be falsified. Evolution (as well as all real scientific theories I know) can be falsified, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_114/ai_n15855372/pg_3 Disproving Evolution and has so far proved to have,unlike ID, predictive capabilities: it predicted DNA or a similar mechanism and the adaptation of microbes and insects to medications and insecticides. We have never been able to prove that God was never involved in the creation of some species, but there is no point in researching that which cannot be falsified, not when there is a logical alternative that stands up to scrutiny. In addition, Behe's work has been criticized as being fundamentally incorrect. Note that this is different from skepticism towards other theories, where empirical evidence proved them to be correct, where the critics reviewed the experiments/derivations and could find no errors, forcing them to accept the theory, in Behe's case his derivations have been reviewed and errors were found. As with any researcher, Behe would have to go back to work and keep trying until there are no errors in his derivations left (that's how the scientific method works.) MiddleMan 20:12, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Middleman, I think you're going off on a tangent. This article is about academic freedom vis-a-vis ID, a field widely (and admittedly) viewed as pseudoscience on the internet and among evolutionist thumpers. But this article is not on a pseudoscience. Alchemy belongs in pseduoscience category. An article on Newton, who may have dabbled in alchemy, does not. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:16, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

The key is that having the cat is not to "label" the article - it is to make it accessible from the category page. It makes complete sense to have an article with a PS in the title, about academic issues regarding that PS, to be listed on that cat page, or, as it could be called considering the goals of this site, that "portal". human^{be in} 20:19, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I seem to be loosing to the mob. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:22, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I was referring to the ID part only, I'll move the part down a paragraph, so the header of this page explains academic freedom, not ID, then the label of pseudoscience does not apply anymore. MiddleMan 20:27, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

title

HG seems to be of the opinion that the primary focus of this artiucle is or should be AF, not ID. Therefore, I ask of any and sundry who wish to opine, should it be retitled Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design?

Also, if we had some other AF articles (I suggested some titles on my talk page[1]), we could also have an AF category, or something like it. human^{be in} 20:29, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I would support rearranging the title. I think we should look at another proposal, too.

Have two categories.

1. pseudoscience
2. articles that mention fields widely viewed to be pseudoscience

Make 2 a subcategory of 1, after working on the phrasing of 2. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:32, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

How about just calling this article: "Academic Freedom"? Of course it would need more stuff on actual academic freedom for that. MiddleMan 20:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I like the article vis-a-vis ID, becuase it sheds light on the idealogical motives of evolutionist thumpers. An article on academic freedom in general is also of some worth, too (there was a tenured professor with relevenat expertise who took a whole lot of flak for scientifically questioning the veracity of the official NTSB account of the WTC collapse, and was ultimately forced into early retirement. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:42, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the phrase "idealogical motives of evolutionist thumpers" is mildly offensive and hence adds little to this discussion. Especially when it's missspelled ;) This isn't about evolution, it's about a religious doctrine called "Intelligent Design" and academic freedom. human^{be in} 20:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

My spelling, while much improved since highschool, still scuks. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:49, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

introductory definitions

Middleman apprently deleted this:

"Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It is generally regarded to be a pseudoscience by the vast number of scientists who accept evolution."

And I don't know why. The article should start by defining the terms in the title. human^{be in} 20:51, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I do not object to reincluding it, so long as it is not the basis of including this article in the pseudoscience category. We were discussing what to do with the categories on some other thread, so no need to continue that here. I concur with your point that the explanation of ID is valid in the intro. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:53, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll put it back then. It's deletion may have been an accident. As far as the PS inclusion, um, it's because the article is about Intelligent Design - a PS - and AF. Sorry for all the friggin abbr.s, I get sick of typing these long words. human^{be in} 20:57, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I moved the ID explanation to the actual case studies as I thought this was an article on AF in general, so that part about the WTC-professor could be included as well. I see that wasn't your intention, but if it's only about the ID-connection, I suggest turning this into an essay. MiddleMan 07:40, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, from my research, as I work on this article, it is becoming clear that simply sharing information in a public manner that casts doubt on aspects of the TOE is sufficient to stir the wrath of biology departments, in the form of inquistions regarding personal religous beliefs. If the same sort of thing occured against those who study global warming, we'd have accusations of paganism, mother earth worship, and Wiccanism by mainstream professors against wackos who think the sky is falling. Consequently, I am thinking that an article specifically on suppression of Academic Freedom against those who do not toe the T.O.E. line would be interested, as would be a more general article on academic freeedom. Middleman, I think maybe you should stop assuming that this particular article is on academic freedom in general. It is an article on academic freedom in the context of ID, or at least in the context of scientists et al tagged with the ID label by evolutionist defenders. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:30, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, you'll be happy to know that there is a lot of debate within scientific circles about global warming, not on the phenomenon itself (it's hard to disagree when you see satellite pictures of shrinking glaciers and polar icecaps), but to what degree (20%, 30%, 60%, etc...) human activity is the cause of this is still the subject of debate. There is also a lot of debate on the finer details of the TOE, it's like nuclear science: we do not yet know everything about quarks and neutrino's, but we do know that they exist, and if someone comes in and says: "well, we don't know everything, so they don't exist", they will be accused of pseudoscience, and with good reason. There maybe people who have strong scientific arguments against the TOE (against the TOE, not in favour of ID, because ID is not-falsifiable), but I have yet to find any convincing arguments. HG, you said you're an academic, just out of curiosity, what is your field of expertise? (Just so I know what areas of science you are familiar with.) MiddleMan 14:20, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Wedge Document 2

Another difference is that people are aware of the Wedge Document and what is says about secretly introducing the ID religion as science. I guess it makes people a bit more skeptical about the motives of people who claim ID is science. --Bob_M (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll have to take a look at the wedge document. But it sounds erily similar to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...whether or not the document exists and is genuine is not as interesting as how it is used to demonize larger groups than the supposed group that wrote the document. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Please do read it. A copy is on this site. human^{be in} 00:28, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I'll read it. As I have read the Protocols. But what makes the wedge document so important? Why does it make evolutionists automatically assume anybody who questions evolution to be a member of some plan to force all children to be indoctrinated with a Christian education? Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:52, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

It does not cast a shadow on "anybody who questions evolution". It is the founding document of the ID movement, however. ID does not merely question evolution - it seeks to replace "random mutation" with an unspecified, supernatural actor. So, when ID is discussed, the wedge document comes up. As far as questioning, any scientist doing any research related to evolution is essentially "questioning" it. human^{be in} 11:46, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

MM, I am not an academic, if by academic you mean a person who is a member of an institution of higher learning. I am tracking with you, though. Heart♥Gold ^tx 01:06, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone know if there's been an official response to the Wedge document by its (supposed) creators? HG, not an academic, my mistake, so, what you do you do for a living? MiddleMan 06:25, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

As far as I am aware the Discovery Institute has said very little about its wedge document. Possible because they want to give it as little publicity as possible. --Bob_M (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

There is absolutely no doubt it's 100% genuine. It was accepted as evidence in the Dover trial and is acknowledged as genuine by the Discovery Institute. --Bob_M (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

The discovery Institutes's acknowledgment and response saying essentially "so what?" is here.http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349 --Bob_M (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

"discovery Institutes's acknowledgment and response saying essentially literally "so what?"" human^{be in} 12:36, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Authenticity of the document is beside the point, guilt by association is the point. E.g., the DI supports ID as part of a strategy to foist Christianity in the public classroom. You mention ID (or some ID ideas). You therefore are guilty of also supporting forced christian indoctrination via the public schools. Heart♥Gold ^tx 13:41, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Yup. There's a difference between questioning TOE (that's science) and promoting ID (a religion). If ID is to be discussed as a science, it must become scientific, first. Much as "creation science" was never scientific. I can still hear the crickets over at the "falsify" articles. Please, note also that Behe teaches a course on ID at Lehigh - a prominent university. I added it to the article, of course. human^{be in} 14:40, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree...call it Creation Science on the same day you subject it to scientific scrutiny. Critique of Evo is not a bad thing, obviously...as long as, along with any scientific theory, it is done scientifically. When ID follows scientific method, I'll gladly see it added to a science cirriculum.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:07, 25 June 2007 (CDT)