University
of Washington evolutionary biology professor unabashedly pens a column in the NYT about how he evangelizes for atheism to college students
taking biology classes. Would a scientist who let his classroom know
about scientific arguments for intelligent design, or books that made
those arguments, be able to give a converse "Talk" in most public
university science classrooms with no repercussions? Let alone a
religious scientist advocating for theism in what he called "The Talk"
at the start of his biology class? Oh please. In fact, his arguments are
facile, foolish, and pompous all at the same time. His arguments and my
brief rebuttals boil down to:
1. "We have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness." Unfortunately for him, the scientific literature is not filled with the detailed explanations for the origin of ("irreducibly") complex structures (let alone DNA) explained in terms of random variation plus natural selection. And all this does not even address the origin of life or the universe itself, or the laws or constants that allow life to exist in our universe at all.
2. "A few of my students shift uncomfortably in their seats. I go on... [N]o literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals." He says humans have no "literally supernatural traits." What does that even mean? Even the most literal creationist would expect humans to have "literal" natural traits, with blood flowing and organs pumping. I don't think anyone expects scientists to find a soul under a microscope. Regardless, no animal comprehends right and wrong, good and evil, or fashions moral codes. Let alone music, art, etc. I await the great works of St. Barkustine and Meowmonides.
3. "Biological insight makes it clear that...the natural world... is filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death -- and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things." These are not "ethical horrors," as ethics revolve around human agency. I think what the foolhardy professor actually refers to is a sort of "natural evil." On that point, the only reason a proselytizing atheist professor seems to describe these natural occurrences as "unethical" is precisely because of the very human uniqueness he denies in his previous point. After all, he give no explanation for why it is "unethical" when it is purely "natural"? The real issue of natural evil itself is why innocent humans should suffer, not why there are parasitic flowering plants. Though given his previous point, maybe he can't see the distinction. The question of innocent suffering is a question so old the Bible presents it as an issue in the Book of Job (as the professor is aware, given his dismissive characterization). In every particular, or even every grand historical event, it is not a question that has a simple and identifiable answer. What is clear is that this is all a far cry from teaching a biology class to college students, and the professor has a very muddled or confused idea of the questions he himself is posing.
The professor believes in atheistic Scientism, and he believes his science background automatically turns him into an amateur philosopher. It doesn't, or at least not a very good one. But even if he believes that false belief as well, he should not turn his classroom into a forum for indoctrination.
Tweet
1. "We have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness." Unfortunately for him, the scientific literature is not filled with the detailed explanations for the origin of ("irreducibly") complex structures (let alone DNA) explained in terms of random variation plus natural selection. And all this does not even address the origin of life or the universe itself, or the laws or constants that allow life to exist in our universe at all.
2. "A few of my students shift uncomfortably in their seats. I go on... [N]o literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals." He says humans have no "literally supernatural traits." What does that even mean? Even the most literal creationist would expect humans to have "literal" natural traits, with blood flowing and organs pumping. I don't think anyone expects scientists to find a soul under a microscope. Regardless, no animal comprehends right and wrong, good and evil, or fashions moral codes. Let alone music, art, etc. I await the great works of St. Barkustine and Meowmonides.
3. "Biological insight makes it clear that...the natural world... is filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death -- and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things." These are not "ethical horrors," as ethics revolve around human agency. I think what the foolhardy professor actually refers to is a sort of "natural evil." On that point, the only reason a proselytizing atheist professor seems to describe these natural occurrences as "unethical" is precisely because of the very human uniqueness he denies in his previous point. After all, he give no explanation for why it is "unethical" when it is purely "natural"? The real issue of natural evil itself is why innocent humans should suffer, not why there are parasitic flowering plants. Though given his previous point, maybe he can't see the distinction. The question of innocent suffering is a question so old the Bible presents it as an issue in the Book of Job (as the professor is aware, given his dismissive characterization). In every particular, or even every grand historical event, it is not a question that has a simple and identifiable answer. What is clear is that this is all a far cry from teaching a biology class to college students, and the professor has a very muddled or confused idea of the questions he himself is posing.
The professor believes in atheistic Scientism, and he believes his science background automatically turns him into an amateur philosopher. It doesn't, or at least not a very good one. But even if he believes that false belief as well, he should not turn his classroom into a forum for indoctrination.
RSS Feed (xml)