Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[shunyadragon]

I already stated in another post that the ToE is not based soundly on anything that science uses to base things on. It can't be observed and it certainly can't be repeated. And as I said, while Methodological Naturalism may be "sound" in theory, it is not sound in the way it is used in regards to evolution.

What you say does not make it so since you have an up front in your face opposition to evolution from the perspective of a world view with a hostile view toward science..

Oh, please. You can seriously question my use of the "majority" all you wish, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Oh please?!?!?!? based on what, your personal opinion of scientists. The reality of the world of science is not dependent on your groundless assertion. Yes I can seriously question your use of the majority, based first on the Fallacy of arguing for popularity as a basis of the validity of the knowledge of science..

Polls of scientists are indeed variable, and also the beliefs of scientist do vary as to their cultural and religious back ground. It would help to read the following article to understand the diversity of beliefs among scientists around the world where Methodological Naturalism is the common foundation regardless of what individual scientists believe personally.

Source: http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top-scientists-overwhelmingly-atheists/

Abstract: Writers often cite surveys as evidence that the vast majority of America’s elite scientists are atheists. Since surveys find the majority of America’s general population believing in God, many infer that the study of science typically leads to rejection of faith in God. This paper examines the studies, compares them with related studies, and concludes that most American scientists probably believe in God, and that the majority of elite scientists see no conflict between science and belief in God.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Personal attacks are all part of the stock in trade tactics of those who will actually have scientists and teachers dismissed from their jobs for disagreeing with them.

You may all carry on with your own ignorance and prejudice. Like little children with their fingers stuck in their ears saying, "la la la", so they won't hear anything that disagrees with their view.

YECs seemingly taking pride in doing just that wherever they get control:

In the case of DeGeorge and Barnett at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee^[1], they had conformed to their guidelines (i.e., they are indeed creationists) but this past May a new declaration of faith was issued. As a result the two tenured professors were terminated, nearly a full quarter of the faculty quit instead of signing and a letter of protest was signed by 700 of the nearly 1250 students (including the student body president) there.

There has been an outbreak of similar cases in recent years. In 2012 Cedarville University near Dayton Ohio^[2] dismissed Michael Pahl, widely viewed as an outstanding scholar, who wrote a book ("The Beginning and The End: Rereading Genesis’s Stories and Revelation’s Visions") that administrators viewed as contrary to creationist views in spite of the fact that he fully agrees with the literal six-day creation view and a historical Adam and Eve (and two of Dr. Pahl's colleagues in the Bible department used the book in question as a required text in their own classes). The school even stated that "Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility."

Yet he was still relieved of his teaching duties and CU refuses to disclose exactly what Pahl wrote that got him fired. Some YECs have stated it was because his statement that "the biblical creation stories in Genesis 1-2 is not to answer modern questions about exactly when or precisely how all things came about" are the cause. So it appears that YECs are beginning to eat their own if they suspect they aren't pure enough.

In 2011 Calvin College experienced similar debate when its board of trustees investigated tenured professors of religion Daniel Harlow and John Schneider after they published controversial articles that questioned the existence of a historical Adam despite the fact that their deans and provost had approved plans to publish their work.

And we can go further. Like what happened to Bruce Waltke, a preeminent Old Testament scholar, who in 2010 was pressured into resigning his professorship at the Reformed Theological Seminary because he had the temerity to say that he thought that evolution and Christianity were compatible.

Or to Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who wrote a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) book after which he was summarily prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught for 16 years^[3]

Or to Nancey Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren and a Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, where the "Father of Intelligent Design" Phillip Johnson is a trustee and appears to be trying to get her fired for daring to criticize his book "Darwin on Trial"?^[4]

Or even to prominent ID proponent William Dembski at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when he wrote that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve and that Noah's Flood was likely a local event rather than global in nature^[5]

Actually none of this is anything new, whenever they get into power YECs have been purging or "Expelling" those who don't agree with them for years (they've just increased the pace).

Back in 1973 John C. Whitcomb (co-author with Henry Morris of "The Genesis Flood") had Dan E. Wonderly, a conservative OEC removed from his position as a teacher at Grace College (where Whitcomb exercised a great deal of influence) for having the temerity to disagree with the YEC position concerning Noah's Flood specifically regarding "Flood Geology."

And how the Geoscience Research Institute (a Seventh-Day Adventist creationist think tank) fired the geologists on staff when they concluded that flood geology was a farce (“desperately weak and improbable,” according to one with actual geological training).








1. Named after anti-evolution crusader William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor of the Scopes Trial of 1925 and long a hot bed for creationist thought

2. Note that this is the same "institute of higher learning" that cut the staff of their philosophy department and eliminated philosophy and physics majors after a philosophy faculty member wrote an op-ed for the campus newspaper on “Why I am Not Voting for Romney.”

3. The university’s president John Bowling also banned professors from assigning his book claiming that he banned it in order to "get the bull's-eye off Colling and let the storm die down." Yeah, he did it for his own good.

4. Johnson readily admits that he called another trustee to discuss her but denies any responsibility for actions taken against her (purely coincidental I'm sure). Murphy isn't buying it. In an article in the “Washington Post” she said, "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas. For a long time afterward, I would tell reporters I don't want to comment, and I don't want you to say I don't want to comment. I'm tired of being careful."

5. Dembski was forced to recant after Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson (a YEC) informed him that he was facing dismissal.

And it hasn't just been teachers/professors

A few years ago the Director of Science in the curriculum division of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for nine years, Christine Comer, was "Expelled" by YECs when they gained control.

Lizzette Reynolds demanded that Comer be fired because she had forwarded an email announcing a lecture being given by Barbara Forrest (who served as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and is an author of an unflattering book on the Intelligent Design movement) adding "FYI" to it. Reynolds called the email "highly inappropriate" and "an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities." Shortly after sending the email, Comer was placed on administrative leave. Monica Martinez, another YEC official cited the email in a memo recommending her termination.

Many believe her firing is actually in retaliation for the role Comer played in 2003 in blocking an effort to purchase biology textbooks that supported intelligent design and that creationists wanted her removed prior to the next vote on the textbooks.

All dismissed (or threatened with dismissal like ID Demski) for disagreeing or not being doctrinally pure enough of a YEC.

[seer]

Read my posts and the one beginning this thread seer. I have already done that for both theists and atheists that misuse Methodological Naturalism to justify a metaphysical agenda in many threads including this one.

Every time you post seer it is like Ground Hog Day all over again.

But how come I never see you starting threads chiding the atheists who misuse science, who use science to justify a non-religious agenda, you are always attacking theists.

[rogue06]

The majority of scientists I have heard speak on the issue are highly vocal in their view that God does not exist and that all the answers to all of life's questions are held within the realms of science. Those with other views are usually ignored or ridiculed or condemned in some way, just as shuny has done in this op. Some are even fired for not agreeing with the politically correct views of the majority.

Really? You mean like these guys:

• Francisco J. Ayala the biologist and philosopher, former Dominican priest and President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

• Robert Bakker the paleontologist and minister known for his revolutionary ideas concerning dinosaurs

• Francis Collins the geneticist who headed the Human Genome Project and is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

• Theodosius Dobzhansky the geneticist and biologist who was a key figure in the development of the evolutionary synthesis

• Richard Feynman the theoretical physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 famous for his work in quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and particle physics

• Karl W. Giberson the physicist who teaches courses on physics, astronomy, and science and religion at Eastern Nazarene College

• Owen J. Gingerich the Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University, and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

• Martinez Hewlett the professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona

• Norman Hughes the biologist and Professor Emeritus of Biology at Pepperdine University

• Ian Hutchinson the nuclear physicist and professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

• Denis Lamoureux the biologist who holds a professorial chair of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta

• Ard Louis the Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford who also taught Theoretical Chemistry at Cambridge University

• Keith B. Miller the geologist at Kansas State University

• Kenneth Miller the cell biologist and molecular biologist and professor at Brown University

• Simon Conway Morris the palaeontologist widely known for his work at the Cambrian aged Burgess Shale in British Columbia

• Martin A. Nowak the Professor of Biology and Mathematics at Harvard

• William D. Phillips the physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997

• John Polkinghorne the theoretical physicist, theologian and Anglican priest

• Mary Schweitzer the paleontologist from North Carolina State University famous for her discovery of "soft tissue" inside fossilized dinosaur bones

• Howard J. Van Till the physicist and emeritus professor of physics at Calvin College

• Charles Hard Townes the physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for his work research in quantum electronics leading to the development of the maser and laser

• Michael Zimmerman the biologist and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

All quite open about their Christian beliefs (some are also ministers) and who have excelled in their fields. Even one of those responsible for the the modern evolutionary synthesis (Neo-Darwinism), Theodosius Dobzhansky was a firm believers in a personal God and devout member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Mossy, you are falling for a series of myths pushed by those who are opposed to evolution and used to rationalize this opposition and (as I demonstrated in my last post -- #17) behave in exactly the manner that they accuse others of engage in when provided with half a chance.

[rogue06]

The theory of evolution is not the best available explanation for the evidence we have, neither is it couple with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed.

It is taught in public schools as fact, and it's proponents reject any other options, such as Creationism, to be taught alongside so that students can make their own decisions. It is a religion and it's followers are as zealous as those in other religions that try to silence their detractors.

I already stated in another post that the ToE is not based soundly on anything that science uses to base things on. It can't be observed and it certainly can't be repeated. And as I said, while Methodological Naturalism may be "sound" in theory, it is not sound in the way it is used in regards to evolution.

Evolution has been observed in both the laboratory and nature -- and not just evolution but the dreaded (cue scary music) MACROevolution, which is defined as being evolution AT or above the species level. Speciation (the formation of new and distinct species through the splitting of a single lineage into two or more genetically distinct ones) has been observed so many times that the major YEC organizations and their spokespersons have rejected their original notion that all species were separately and divinely created and readily acknowledged that speciation takes place.

AnswersinGenesis (AiG) lists the claim that “No new species have been produced” as #8 on their list of “Arguments that should never be used.” Likewise, Creation Ministries International (CMI) includes it on their “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page under “Which arguments should definitely not be used?" They even mention in another part that lopatric speciation is “a geographically isolated population forming a new species.” And even the more strident CreationWiki also lists “No new species have been produced” in their “Arguments creationists should not use” page.

Source: Carl Wieland of AiG

"It is clear from such examples [he cites gulls as an example] that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related…The formation of new species actually fits the creation model very comfortably"

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Carl Wieland

"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Don Batten

"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution"

© Copyright Original Source

Source: AiG: Top Ten: Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

“A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place... Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: AiG: Do Species Change?

“To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years).”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: AiG: Science or the Bible?

“Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases. ... Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: ICR: Speciation and the Animals on the Ark

"Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another... There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John Woodmarppe

"Anti-creationists commonly raise doubts if new species and genera could arise in only the few thousand years since the Flood. In doing so, they only display their ignorance of both creationist and evolutionist research along these lines. In fact, the release of single pairs and seven pairs of animals [from the Ark] must have facilitated the rapid origin of new species and genera."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Creationwiki: Speciation

Speciation is the natural process by which new species are formed. A species is generally defined as a naturally-occurring population that is actually or potentially interbreeding and reproductively isolated from other such groups (Ernst Mayr 1942).[1] The formation of a new species most often occurs when members of an established population become separated, preventing mating or genetic flow between the groups. Organisms that were once capable of interbreeding will gradually develop barriers to reproduction when segregated and exposed to differential selective pressures. This process results in two or more genetically distinct groups of organisms that are no longer capable of interbreeding (species).[2]

Speciation is the leading mechanism responsible for the diversification of the created kinds of plants and animals into many physically distinct groups (see: biological evolution). The formation of new species has been a frequent part of biological history largely due to the ecological diversity of the Earth. Organisms can encounter dramatically different biomes after only a short migration, to which they must adapt. The genetic changes that accomplish these adaptations can render related groups genetically incompatible so that fertilization is no longer possible.

© Copyright Original Source

I had posted several more examples of where YECs acknowledge that speciation indeed takes place and even provide examples, but these were lost in the crash last year. And while several of these YECs admit that speciation takes place they immediately turn around and declare that speciation doesn't demonstrate evolution (either blissfully unaware or hoping their readers don't know that as shown above speciation is a form of not just evolution but by definition of macroevolution)^[1].

Other YECs show integrity and don't pretend otherwise and readily recognize that macroevolution happens

Source: Leonard Brand, Geoscience Research Institute, Chair Professor of Loma Linda University Department of Earth and Biological Sciences

"Genesis does not seem to have anything to say against microevolution and, perhaps, even some macroevolution, at least to the development of new genera."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Kurt Wise, Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College

“Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Todd Wood, YEC baraminologist, Director of the Center for Origins Research and an Associate Professor of Science at Bryan College

“First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.”

© Copyright Original Source

As an aside while speciation is usually a slow process the fact is that in rare cases it can be fairly quick. Speciation can arise in a single generation from the doubling of chromosome numbers (polyploidy). Polyploid speciation is common and occurs naturally, especially among angiosperms (30-70% of them are thought to be polyploidy) and appears to be a very important part of plant evolution. It has also been seen in some fish such as goldfish and salmon.




And yes other options aren't taught alongside evolution much in the same way something like "Intelligent Falling" isn't taught alongside gravitational theory because that is what all of the cross correlating, corroborating, consilient positive evidence from dozens different scientific disciplines keep pointing towards.

It can hardly be argued that evolution itself isn't a fact, what remains open to debate is how it takes place.

Evolution takes place because it's essentially unavoidable in that it is built right into the molecules. The chemistry of DNA makes it unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly meaning that each generation is a little different from the one before it.

Now, any time you have imperfect self-replicators in an environment of limited resources, the result is going to be a tendency of those best suited to acquire and use the resources to produce more offspring.

This will continue to happen again and again, over and over as life changes and adapts to its environment

Finally, no means has ever been observed that would ever prevent numerous small changes from accumulating into larger scale changes over scores of generations.

Isn't it wondrous that God put into place such a marvelous process as evolution?











1. Note that in one of the quotes that YECs are even saying that "Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches." New species resulting from mutations and natural selection is essentially at the core of what Darwin wrote! They are agreeing that evolution takes place as Darwin claimed it did but good luck ever getting them to acknowledge it as such. I predict that in a couple decades YECs will be accepting all of this but only as long as they can call it something else like "Biblical Adaptationism."

[shunyadragon]

But how come I never see you starting threads chiding the atheists who misuse science, who use science to justify a non-religious agenda, you are always attacking theists.

Seer, read my posts and threads. My views are very very clear, and I am not posting to fulfill your expectations. I do post in threads when atheist propose Metaphysical Naturalism, and debate head to head with atheists on my theists beliefs.

One further note to my objections. Atheists do not often manipulate science selectively to justify their world view. They just make the metaphysical assumption that science demonstrates the Metaphysical Naturalist view that God(s) do not exists, which I conclude is a personal belief outside science, and goes further then science intended and dishonest. At least atheists get their science right. One the other hand, I find many theists that directly, overt direct dishonestly, and selectively manipulate and reject science itself for a religious agenda, and accuse science as being atheist based. This a problem that is over the top, because of its wide spread popularity in the USA, about 46%. The foolish sheep following the dishonest goats.

The Theists that support science as it is without trying to manipulate it and justify their own world view by attacking science, like rogue6, are what I support.

[TheLurch]

The majority of scientists I have heard speak on the issue are highly vocal in their view that God does not exist and that all the answers to all of life's questions are held within the realms of science. Those with other views are usually ignored or ridiculed or condemned in some way, just as shuny has done in this op. Some are even fired for not agreeing with the politically correct views of the majority.

Well, i have different views, and i've never been ridiculed or condemned. And i've seen no evidence of anyone having been fired from a science position for anything related to political correctness. And, like i said, i've been in science for a long time.

Now, we're both dealing on anecdote, but i'd suggest that my anecdotal evidence is a bit more relevant than yours.

The theory of evolution is not the best available explanation for the evidence we have, neither is it couple with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed.

So, the fact that we've repeatedly shown that random genetic variations occur, and that they are inherited and selected for, isn't actually a fact?

EDIT: this thread was moving fast - i should have read page 2 before posting. My apologies to all who made a lot of what i've just written redundant.

[rogue06]

Evolution has been observed in both the laboratory and nature -- and not just evolution but the dreaded (cue scary music) MACROevolution, which is defined as being evolution AT or above the species level.

Before Jorge can scurry over and pretend that this isn't the authentic definition for macroevolution...

Source: Biology Online

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Evolution Textbook: Glossary

Evolutionary change at or above the species level.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Wikipedia

Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: About.com: Macroevolution

The most important component of macroevolution is the concept of speciation. As adaptations accumulate within a species, eventually individuals will no longer be able to interbreed and therefore are considered a different, but related, species. Macroevolution is the process by which speciation happens for several related species over long periods of time.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Online Biology Dictionary

The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Dictionary.com

major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Merriam-Webster

evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

© Copyright Original Source

Source: American Heritage Dictionary

Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Your Dictionary

The term "macroevolution" refers to a change of an evolutionary nature in a species. A species that splits into two, or a species that changes into another species over a given time are examples of macroevolution.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Definitions.net

major evolutionary change of species and taxa.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Becoming Human Glossary

Macroevolution: Changes produced over many generations, including the appearance of new species.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: ThinkQuest

Traditionally, microevolution is defined as evolution within a species. That is microevolution involves small changes that do not create new species. On the other hand, macroevolution creates new species.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM): Evolution Terminology

Macroevolution: large scale change in organisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Talk Origins

Macroevolution: Evolution at or above the species level.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Vocabulary.com

Macroevolution: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Infoplease

mac•ro•ev•o•lu•tion: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Evolution For Dummies

Macroevolution, as it is usually described, is concerned with evolution on the grand scale, with the branching out of new species and larger groups, like families and species


AP Biology For Dummies also uses the same definition

© Copyright Original Source

Seems fairly consistent there don't you think? Although I did find a source that incorrectly stated that it is "above the species level" rather than the correct "AT or above the species level." This may be due to how some like the biologist Sean B. Carroll say that "‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species." I really don't know why he calls "the formation of species" (i.e., speciation) as being above the species level but in any case he still is saying that speciation is a form of macroevolution.

Further, some sources aren't real clear and mention things like "formation of new taxonomic groups," "results in the formation of new taxonomic groups" and "the evolution of whole taxonomic groups" but it should be understood that forming a new species (speciation) is forming a new taxonomic group.










1. he has his own definition for many terms that he insists others must use (or else they are on drugs/drunk/duped/deceitful/dumb or some other d-word) like for "distort" (something by his own definition that only non-YECs are capable of doing), religion, methodological naturalism, and Theory of Evolution (he prefers General Theory of Evolution which includes virtually any scientific discovery he is uncomfortable with even if they have nothing to do with biological evolution such as plate tectonics, the Big Bang, natural star formation and the existence of extra-solar planets).

[rogue06]

I

Then you are 100% in error. Like most people nowadays, I was taught it in school, my children were taught it in school, I have read about it as an adult and I listen carefully when evolutionists discuss it.

I reject it. 100%.

Unfortunately with very rare exceptions when those that make this claim proceed to explain what they think evolutionary theory says they are quite a ways off the mark revealing that they really don't understand what it is that they so adamantly oppose. Almost every exception that I have come across has been an OEC rather than a YEC.

[Jorge]

Source: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19763/

A physics professor at the University of Oklahoma who often spends his time studying smashed subatomic particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN laboratory in Switzerland has another hobby – smashing the notion that all scientists believe the universe was created by some sort of cosmic accident.

Dr. Michael Strauss has given some iteration of a lecture he’s titled “Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God” to students and peers at universities across the nation for nearly 15 years, including at Stanford, UT Dallas, UC Santa Barbara, and most recently Thursday at the University of Missouri-Columbia, where he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”

This is coming from an experimental particle physics expert who also says scientific evidence shows the universe is 14 billion years old, and that it was created through a so-called “big bang” – which many people also hear from the likes of atheist and agnostic scientists.

. . . . . .

In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field.

© Copyright Original Source

As a Physicist he should know better claiming it has been determined that our physical existence has been demonstrated to have a beginning. There are different models of the cosmology that have demonstrated that our physical existence has "beginnings," but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that our physical existence has a 'definite definable "beginning.

I do have strong objections to Strauss's line of reason in that he is using a religious agenda with anecdotal claims and inferences to reach his conclusions. The following quote is highly problematic, and essentially accuses science of being based on atheist assumption which is patently false.

The foundation of scientific methods is 'Methodological Naturalism,' assuming science cannot test and falsify theological questions, and remains neutral to whether any one of the many versions of God(s) exists or not. Some scientists assume Metaphysical Naturalism, and are atheists. This is a metaphysical personal view, and not based on scientific assumptions.

I'm willing to bet - sight unseen - that this prof is TENURED. Even so, he stands at risk of being EXPELLED for daring to rock the Materialistic Boat. We'll just have to wait and see what develops.

Dean Kenyon, author of a best-selling OOL textbook, was a tenured "rock star" professor amongst Materialists. Then one day he concluded - by following the evidence - that Intelligent Design made more scientific sense. His career went on a permanent downhill slide from that moment forward. EXPELLED!!! Though events such as these are denied, they are absolutely true.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Dean Kenyon, author of a best-selling OOL textbook, was a tenured "rock star" professor amongst Materialists. Then one day he concluded - by following the evidence - that Intelligent Design made more scientific sense. His career went on a permanent downhill slide from that moment forward. EXPELLED!!! Though events such as these are denied, they are absolutely true.

If he was a rock star, i'm surprised i'd never heard of him, given i studied across the Bay at Berkeley at a time he was still in SF. In contrast, I knew a lot of the high-profile scientists at UCSF and Stanford.

In any case, the Wikipedia entry on him suggests that his department chair did try to limit his teaching of intelligent design in biology classes, but the faculty of his institution opposed this on the grounds of academic freedom. So, unless there's other information that's not included there, this doesn't appear to be a simple case of expulsion.

[rogue06]

Dean Kenyon, author of a best-selling OOL textbook, was a tenured "rock star" professor amongst Materialists. Then one day he concluded - by following the evidence - that Intelligent Design made more scientific sense. His career went on a permanent downhill slide from that moment forward. EXPELLED!!! Though events such as these are denied, they are absolutely true.

Jorge

By "EXPELLED" do you mean being the current Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University? And Kenyon has been open about his YEC position since the early 1980s (over 30 years ago) when he testified on behalf of for the creationist side in the McLean vs. Arkansas case (1981) and later in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). He was officially pushing including creationism in biology classes at SFSU since 1980. His career did not appear to suffer as a result.

It wasn't until the mid-1990s that he was finally asked to stop teaching creationism in introductory biology courses at SFSU after complaints began to pile up. He refused and was temporarily suspended from teaching the class until the dispute was settled. Kenyon was actually supported by the faculty who opposed administrative interference over what professors taught. In the end he was allowed to continue.

Source: Teacher wins fight over creationism

For more than 10 years, Dean Kenyon has been teaching that an "intelligent designer'' created the first life on Earth, accumulating a small but steady stream of student complaints as well as the enmity of his colleagues in science.

But on what is certainly one of the most liberal and iconoclastic campuses in the country, the renegade biologist has found a wellspring of support among his fellow professors at San Francisco State University.

After the biology department finally banned Kenyon from teaching an introductory course, saying he was propagandizing students with religion, the university's academic senate rose to the professor's defense voting 25-8 last month to declare his academic freedom had been violated. The American Association of University Professors also has come to Kenyon's defense.

The faculty endorsement, which led to Kenyon's reinstatement in the course effective next summer, appears unique in the annals of higher education. The vote accentuates the deep division between scientific and humanistic views of what should be taught in a science classroom

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

By "EXPELLED" do you mean being the current Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University? And Kenyon has been open about his YEC position since the early 1980s (over 30 years ago) when he testified on behalf of for the creationist side in the McLean vs. Arkansas case (1981) and later in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). He was officially pushing including creationism in biology classes at SFSU since 1980. His career did not appear to suffer as a result.

It wasn't until the mid-1990s that he was finally asked to stop teaching creationism in introductory biology courses at SFSU after complaints began to pile up. He refused and was temporarily suspended from teaching the class until the dispute was settled. Kenyon was actually supported by the faculty who opposed administrative interference over what professors taught. In the end he was allowed to continue.

Source: Teacher wins fight over creationism

For more than 10 years, Dean Kenyon has been teaching that an "intelligent designer'' created the first life on Earth, accumulating a small but steady stream of student complaints as well as the enmity of his colleagues in science.

But on what is certainly one of the most liberal and iconoclastic campuses in the country, the renegade biologist has found a wellspring of support among his fellow professors at San Francisco State University.

After the biology department finally banned Kenyon from teaching an introductory course, saying he was propagandizing students with religion, the university's academic senate rose to the professor's defense voting 25-8 last month to declare his academic freedom had been violated. The American Association of University Professors also has come to Kenyon's defense.

The faculty endorsement, which led to Kenyon's reinstatement in the course effective next summer, appears unique in the annals of higher education. The vote accentuates the deep division between scientific and humanistic views of what should be taught in a science classroom

© Copyright Original Source

Correct! David Kenyon was not expelled from the school, but they ought to build a chapel for him to teach in.

[Jedidiah]

The theory of evolution is not the best available explanation for the evidence we have, neither is it couple with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed.

I do not see the TOE as a religion. It is however only the best available explanation if we exclude the possibility of creation. It is the best scientific explanation available, but as Shuny pointed out, "science cannot test and falsify theological questions." So to claim it is the best available is really circular.

[Teallaura]

In other news, Shuny still can't spell...

Endorse, not 'endorce'...
























































if we're gonna rant, might as well be about something that matters....