Teaching your own discredited science

[Questioninggeller]

William Dembski of intelligent design fame is currently a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dembski posted the readings for his fall semester 2007 classes on his website:

PHREL 4### Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution?

Course Objective: The goal of this course is to help students understand how evolutionary theory and intelligent design fit within a Christian worldview.

Reading List:
William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004).
William Dembski and James Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2001).
Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity, 1993).
Denyse O’Leary, By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004).
Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004).

So the first class includes two of Dembski's works, a work by his peer at the Discovery Institute, and a book by a woman who blogs with Dembski at uncommondescent.com.

PHREL 4373 Christian Apologetics

Course Objective: The goal of this course is to help students reflect with theological accuracy, philosophical precision, and cultural sensitivity on the Christian apologetic enterprise.

Reading List:
Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000).
William A. Dembski & Jay Wesley Richards, eds., Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001).
Martin Gardner, The Flight of Peter Fromm (1973; reprinted Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1994).
Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995).
C. S. Lewis, Miracles (1947; revised and reprinted San Francisco: Harper,2001).
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, Mich..: Eerdmans, 1989).

Dembski and Johnson again. Strange. Why are the same authors being used for a Christian Apologetics course as for a class on intelligent design?

PHREL 7### The Coherence of Intelligent Design

Seminar Objective: The goal of this seminar is to help students to see how intelligent design coheres as an intellectual project.

Reading List:
William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002).
William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).
Neil A. Manson, ed., God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge, 2003).
Angus Menuge, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004).
Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 2001).
Matt Young and Taner Edis, eds., Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (New Brunswick, N.J..: Rutgers University
Press, 2004)

Again, two more Dembski books.

In one semester Dembski is teaching with 5 books he authored and/or edited. Those books are used in Christian apologetic classes as well as intelligent design classes.

If you are going to assign five of your books, they should at least be peer-reviewed amongst scholars as well provide works that accurately demonstrate the state of field.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, hang on. Where are the books on evolution? He might as well change the first course name to:

Intelligent Design, but Evolution Is a Load of Crap


~~ Paul

 

[tsg]

Course Objective: The goal of this course is to help students understand how evolutionary theory and intelligent design fit within a Christian worldview.

Day 1: Intelligent Design does.
Day 2: Evolution doesn't.
Day 3: Final exam.

 

[clerihew80]

Love this loaded phrase: "Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution."

If you're an ingenuous undergrad, unfamiliar with the arguments, which are you going to chose? Intelligence or unintelligence?

 

[becomingagodo]

Day 1: Intelligent Design does.
Day 2: Evolution doesn't.
Day 3: Final exam.

Anwser to all the questions,

1. God did it.
2. The eye is too complex.
3. If evolution was true, my uncle would be a monkey.
4. Gene or material proves evolution wrong.
5. This didn't just happen.

The easiest test in the world.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geez, Becoming, you didn't put a spoiler tag around those answers. Now everyone will get an A. Cuz, like, you know they are all reading this forum.

While we're cheating, let me present the answer to the extra-credit question, so everyone can get an A+:

6. Simply treat the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object.

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Love this loaded phrase: "Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution."

If you're an ingenuous undergrad, unfamiliar with the arguments, which are you going to chose? Intelligence or unintelligence?

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

 

[Mosquito]

Anwser to all the questions,

1. God did it.
2. The eye is too complex.
3. If evolution was true, my uncle would be a monkey.
4. Gene or material proves evolution wrong.
5. This didn't just happen.

The easiest test in the world.

1. Yes he did, but only once, and although it made the poor girl pregnant, he never helped out with the kid, preferring to let another guy do his job for him.

2. It is. And like all things too complex, this complexity makes it fail in a large number of ways that a simpler design could only have nightmares about.

3. He is. And he'll remain one until he quits monkeying around like a baboon on crack.

4. Gene and Bob, actually, but still correct, though you'll get only half credit for this, as Material was the guy who proved gravity to be an illusion. Later research has shown that they were smoking something efficient though, and their results have been found lacking, but that's for nexts year's class.

5. Sorry but it did, what did you think just happened? Huh? Try to be a little more alert!


Mosquito - this gives you 3/5 which is close to failure... Sharpen up!

ETA: Actually you only get 2.5/5, which is even closer to failure, but at least you're not the only one who needs to sharpen up...

 

[Questioninggeller]

Not knowing a lot about Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, but knowing its widely respected by serious Baptist scholars as a good institution, I thought it would have good instruction. But now, I have to completely reconsider that and in fact question the teaching/classes more generally.

Dembski is one of their research professors, and has updated his teaching materials: http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

This is the syllabus' description and books for a Sophomore course taught by Dembski. Even the class title is two logical fallacies-false dichotomy and an ad hominem ("Unintelligent Evolution"). What's the philosophy department think of that?

From that syllabus:

Course Title: PHILO 2483; Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution
Class Dates, Time, and Term: Monday afternoon, Fall 2009
Room: TBA
Professor: William A. Dembski

COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course provides an overview of the broad cultural, intellectual, and scientific movement known as intelligent design as well as of its chief antagonist, the view that cosmological and biological origins are best explained as the result of an accidental evolutionary process. Three hours.

COURSE GOALS The goal of this course is to help students understand how evolutionary theory and intelligent design fit within a Christian worldview.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In this course the student will:
Come to understand the main scientific and theological issues raised by the debate between evolution and design.
Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges that the theory of intelligent design
raises against the theory of Darwinian evolution.
Learn to write critical reviews appropriate to the debate between evolution and design.

COURSE TEXTS
Required
Denyse O’Leary, By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004).
William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008).
William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009).
Karl W. Giberson, Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (New York: HarperOne, 2008).
Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2009).

Four of out five books are by people from the discredited Discovery Institute, who are pushing a anti-science agenda. Five out of five of the books are by Christians who think reality is the activity of God. Every single book is from a Christian publishing house. How can you teach "debate between evolution and design" without a science book from the "evolution perspective"? Why is it all religious books? Not a single author is a biologist--I mean Denyse O'Leary has no science background, period. The Design of Life, as Dembski and the publisher states, is a intelligent design "science" book for high school students. But he assigned it for a college philosophy class? How can you teach evolution without having a book that accurately reflections the field of biology or that perspective?

If you don't know a lot about Giberson, he doesn't like creationism/intelligent design, but wrote in May 2009 that "... I also believe this reality is rooted in the creative and sustaining activity of God. God can act in the world and provide a larger understanding of the way things are."

Ok, but maybe Dembski's instruction makes for the lack of rigor in the books he assigned?

Here is his December 10, 2008 final for his course PHILO 4483, Christian Faith and Science Place: In cyberspace. Note that Dembski has a "grader" for the final and its unknown whether he actually reads these and gives the students feedback.

Here's one of eight questions:

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?

What a grossly misleading, historically inaccurate account of these issues. A student will only be able to answer the question with an equally ahistorical response. Further, if one is examing Christian faith and science tied to, say eugenics, then why not ask about Christian faith and science tied to eugenics? It's a well-studied field with books like The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, which discusses the Nazi's anti-materialist agenda's tie to Christianity.

Seriously, this is what passes for philosophy instruction as one of the most revered Baptist institutions?

 

[geni]

If you are going to assign five of your books, they should at least be peer-reviewed amongst scholars as well provide works that accurately demonstrate the state of field.

Books are not normaly peer reviewed.

 

[shadron]

Books are not normaly peer reviewed.

Yeah, and I don't suppose it has an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat, either.

But hey, those boat payments don't go away when you're a professor of philosophy, you know?

 

[Questioninggeller]

Books are not normaly peer reviewed.

Scholarly books are peer-reviewed, that's true by definition. All academic presses do this and have a bilnd process for ensuring quality. In fact, the peer-review book process is what led to Michael Behe's book rightfully getting turned down by the original publisher.

The general argument is that scholarly articles do get more scrutiny, however. This is mainly due to length and time, and usually books are based on articles the author already published. It is common for an article to be later turned into a book chapter.

The University of California Press notes:

All manuscripts undergo extensive peer-review, which includes outside readings by field experts.

How do you think academic presses decide what to published or not?


Back to the main issue, I see PZ Myers looked through Dembski's teaching material as well:

Bill Dembski's Intelligent Design course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has some interesting course requirements.

provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you've made on "hostile" websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

 

[lenny]

Scholarly books are peer-reviewed, that's true by definition. All academic presses do this and have a bilnd process for ensuring quality.

yes, there is a process; but is it very different than reviewing articles. the publishers have much more invested in a book by the time the text is reviewed (and it is harder to reject an outline/proposal than a text), and the idea that one expert in the field will not recognize another expert-in-the-same-field's book just because her name has been deleted is a bit naive.

even with journal articles, editors who reject "too many" papers come under pressure. with books, editors can push reviewers to "help make it better" rather than reject a manuscript the editor has a significant interest in turning into a book.

the fact that really "bad" books are rejected is a tremendous credit to the publishers that reject them.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Off topic- why is there a field called "Christian apologetics"? Why did C.S.Lewis call himself a "Christian apologist"?

"Apologist" denotes someone making excuses. If you are defending something you think is true and argue is true, you aren't making excuses for it.

 

[drkitten]

Off topic- why is there a field called "Christian apologetics"? Why did C.S.Lewis call himself a "Christian apologist"?

"Apologist" denotes someone making excuses.

No, it doesn't. "Apologist" denotes someone who is defending or justifying something. (Look it up. For instance, from the American Heritage dictionary, "[a] person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution." If you have on-line access to the OED, you can even find dated examples of contexts.)

The word "apologist" (and "apologetics") actually derive from the Latin apologia, which is a formal written defence, not from the English word "apology."

 

[shadron]

Choose 1a:

• Main Entry: apol·o·gy
• Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpä-lə-jē\
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): plural apol·o·gies
• Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French apologie, from Late Latin apologia, from Greek, from apo- + logos speech — more at legend
• Date: 1533

1 a : a formal justification : defense b : excuse 2a
2 : an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret <a public apology>
3 : a poor substitute : makeshift

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Doesn't "apologetics" carry the wrong connotation, though? Doesn't "justification" carry the same wrong connotation? Apology and justification is what you do when you are incorrect.

"Christian defense" would be a better name.

 

[drkitten]

Doesn't "apologetics" carry the wrong connotation, though?

I dunno. Do you think that "lightning bugs" should zap you?

Beyond that,.... language changes. The word "apologist" and "apologetics" both predate the word "apology," if I remember correctly. You might as well complain because someone uses the word "catholic" in its original sense ("all-encompassing") instead of using it simply to refer to a particular sect of Christianity.

(Or to put it another way, what do you think the words "hagiology" and "horology" mean? Should we change these words and their centuries of meaning because people can't distinguish between "hor-" and "whore"?)

 

[shadron]

Doesn't "apologetics" carry the wrong connotation, though? Doesn't "justification" carry the same wrong connotation? Apology and justification is what you do when you are incorrect.

"Christian defense" would be a better name.

It's just another meaning of the word; English tends to do that a lot. How many defintions of "go" can you think of? The word "legend" means both a folk story and the inset that explains symbology on a diagram, such as a map.