08:56 AM
5/17/2005
===============
Dr.
Scott,
I'm Salvador Cordova, and I was featured in the April 28, 2005 ariticle in Nature.
Our IDEA chapters have been exploring getting ID into the universities.
Though I'm well aware of NCSE's position regarding ID
in the the public schools, I was VERY surprised at
how Geoff Brumfiel characterized your position
regarding ID in the universities. Something the article attributed to you
did not come with a verbatim quote from you, and I was hoping you could provide
a clarification on that portion of the article as I might want to publish
accurately your position on this matter at our IDEA website.
First of all, I do thank you for something you said in the article in Nature,
"College professors need to be very aware of how they talk about things
such as purpose, chance, cause and design...You should
still be sensitive to the kids in your class."
Along those lines, could you further clarify your position regarding the
following question:
"Do you oppose the offering of courses on Intelligent Design and/or
Creationism in the Philosophy and Religion Departments of secular
universities?"
Also, and this is an aside, but I wrote something about you regarding your
response to Chris Matthews question on Hardball:
"Do you believe that everything we live—do you think our lives, who we
are, the world around us, was an accident of some explosion millions of years
ago and it led to everything we see? Do you believe it was all just natural
selection or just an accident of scientific development? "
The Hardball transcirpts said your response was
"It is....". Is that correct? Something I'm writing
pertains to that, and I want to be sure I represent your position accurately.
If I have your permission to publish your response to these questions,
that would be greatly appreciated. And thank you again for ecouraging professors to be sensitive to their
students. We have not had any complaints from students in the IDEA
chapters in Virginia
regarding insensitive professors.
Regards,
Salvador T.
Cordova
============================================
Below is Dr.
Scott’s Reply, the small print is from the letter above, and the big print is
from Dr. Scott
May 18, 2005 3:12 PM
============================================
Dr. Scott,
I'm Salvador Cordova, and I was featured in the April 28, 2005 ariticle in Nature.
Our IDEA chapters have been exploring getting ID into the universities.
Though I'm well aware of NCSE's position regarding ID
in the the public schools, I was VERY surprised at
how Geoff Brumfiel characterized your position
regarding ID in the universities. Something the article attributed to you
did not come with a verbatim quote from you, and I was hoping you could provide
a clarification on that portion of the article as I might want to publish
accurately your position on this matter at our IDEA website.
reporters have to abbreviate due to space. Nuance
doesn't get expressed well in that format, and my position is indeed nuanced.
First of all, I do thank you for something you
said in the article in Nature, "College professors need to be very aware
of how they talk about things such as purpose, chance, cause
and design...You should still be sensitive to the kids in your class."
You might like to see an article I wrote on this in a truly obscure publication
that scarcely anyone will find, but I think it makes some good points. I often
lecture on the topic when I speak for university science departments. Here's a
reprint, so you don't have to find the Paleontology Society Papers
somewhere... http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/695_problem_concepts_in_evolution_10_1_1999.asp
Along those lines, could you further clarify
your position regarding the following question:
"Do you oppose the offering of courses on Intelligent Design and/or
Creationism in the Philosophy and Religion Departments of secular
universities?"
No. They are quite appropriate for such courses. In general, in American
universities, Religion departments offer scholarly analysis of religion, rather
than devotional study, for which one would seek a seminary. Certainly the c/e
controversy is a public controversy that bears studying as a public controversy
(that's why I wrote my book, after all!) Whether ID is a valid scientific or
philosophical or theological approach can also be determined at the university
level, and certainly is more appropriately determined there than by the local
school board.
I think ID is more likely to be taught in philosophy and religion departments
than in science departments, because a course on ID as science would have to be
pretty short. What do you say after you say, "we can detect design that is
the result of intelligence?" Even assuming the concepts of IC and CSI are
valid, what good are they? How do they help us understand the natural world, especially biological phenomena (which is the claim.) Pretty
soon a college level course in ID would devolve into "evidence against
evolution" (EAE), trotting out the tired
examples most of which we first heard from henry
Morris decades ago. And that is a waste of time.
I've often said that if ID were a valid science, it would be being used to
explain the natural world. I see no evidence of that in the journals. And yet
the claim is that ID is more than EAE. There are lots
of promissory notes about ID "research" being done, or right around
the corner, but the burden of proof is on them to produce some science -- other
than EAE.
Also, and this is an aside, but I wrote
something about you regarding your response to Chris Matthews question on Hardball:
"Do you believe that everything we live—do you think our lives, who we
are, the world around us, was an accident of some explosion millions of years
ago and it led to everything we see? Do you believe it was all just natural
selection or just an accident of scientific development? "
The Hardball transcirpts said your response was
"It is....". Is that correct? Something I'm writing
pertains to that, and I want to be sure I represent your position accurately.
I think there was a
voiceover confusion of more than one voice at once at that point, and the
transcriber did her/his best. I never answered the question because I wanted to
keep the attention on the topic at hand, which is, what should we teach in
science class? It became clear to me that Matthews was moving to the "here
we have the crackpot fundamentalist and here we have the crackpot village
atheist and here we have me, the sensible, moderate in
the middle" and I don't play that game. In addition, the question was
incoherent. If I am going to answer a question about my personal philosophy,
it's not likely one that can be answered by a yes or no!
If I have your permission to publish your
response to these questions, that would be greatly
appreciated. And thank you again for ecouraging
professors to be sensitive to their students. We have not had any
complaints from students in the IDEA chapters in Virginia regarding insensitive professors.
When I talk to science
professors on campuses, I often talk about the points raised in the article
above: that terms we use in evolutionary biology as terms of art have
existential meaning to the public at large, and that when we use them, what our
students might HEAR (as opposed to what we say) is that "God had nothing
to do with it." When I point this out, I have very many scientists say,
"Oh, I get it. OK, I"ll try to be more
careful." This is true of scientists who are theists as well as those who
are nontheists. I have suggested many times to IDers that they could join me in this campaign to sensitize
science professors to inadvertent expressions of animosity towards religion,
but I get brick walls in response. My position is to distinguish between
philosophical and methodological naturalism, but of course, the leaders of the
ID movement reject this distinction and conflate the two. I think the
distinction is real, it should be appreciated, and it is one of the keys to
solving the problem of the rejection of evolution. And a lot of scientists
agree with me, even those who are nonbelievers. But it's much easier for the
leaders of the ID movement to keep flogging Dawkins and Provine
than to reflect the philosophical reality out there.
I think much of the antievolution sentiment in the public is because
anti-evolutionists have sold the public a bill of goods that because science
CAN explain through natural cause, it means that science is saying that
therefore "God had nothing to do with it." Evolution, like all
science, explains through natural cause. It tells you what happened,
and nothing about ultimate cause. If a religious position makes a fact claim,
like special creation of living things in their present form, at one time (the
YEC view), science can propose that there are no data to support this view, and
much against it. But if God wanted to create that way, but make it look like
living things appeared sequentially through time, science of course could not
refute the claim. The claim -- like all claims about God's action in the
natural world -- would in fact not be testable (and therefore not scientific)
because ANY result is compatible with God's action (assuming God is
omnipotent.)
The blame lies partly with science professors and partly with the public. In
defense of science professors, students rarely challenge them for making
atheistic comments when discussing, say, cell division ("Prof. Jones, you
just said that 'enzymes A & B make chromosomes line up on the
equator.' Are you saying that therefore God had nothing to do
with it?") When they are discussing evolution, scientists treat it
the same way as they treat cell division: here are the natural processes that
result in the splitting of a lineage, or whatever. Students are more likely to
read philosophical naturalism into methodological
naturalism when the topic is evolution than when the topic is cell
division -- and we can't blame that on professors. It would help if students
would be a little more reflective on this issue! But professors can be more
sensitive to this issue, certainly. And I find that once the difference between
philosophical and methodological naturalism is pointed out, they "get
it", and few argue that this isn't a good idea.
And yes, you can use this correspondence on your site.
Regards,
Salvador T.
Cordova
Best wishes,
Eugenie
