Intelligent Design opponents willing to debate
New spring seminar to explore reasoning behind opposition
|
Print
E-mail
As the debate continues over whether to present Intelligent Design into the classroom as a science, opponents say they are open to discussing the controversial topic next semester.
A new seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.
The seminar will explore the history of biological evolution and recent developments in Intelligent Design, and according to its course description, "address why biological evolution is considered to be better science and why Intelligent Design is not."
Intelligent Design suggests that life and its components are so inexplicably complex that it would be impossible for them to develop without supernatural influence.
The initial idea dates back to arguments made by Socrates and Plato, with the term first introduced more than 100 years ago, according to the Discovery Institute Web site, but the debate has recently resurfaced.
Earlier this semester, a petition written by Avalos, associate professor of religious studies, Colbert, associate professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, and Clough, associate professor of curriculum and instruction, stating they and approximately 130 other faculty and staff oppose "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor."
Similar statements were issued at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of around 400 professors have signed the three petitions.
Meanwhile, he said, other professors nationwide have backed the movement, including the American Association of University Professors.
Avalos said to take the debate even further, he has invited Robert Hazen, the Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University and a scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory, to speak at an open forum on Feb. 2.
One professor who has already brought the discussion into the classroom.
Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics has been teaching the "God and Science" seminar since 2000.
Ingebritsen said he thinks it is important for students to be aware of his personal Christian beliefs and is up front with them from the beginning.
He described his own Christian beliefs as conservative, and said he is intrigued by the tension between natural history and Genesis 1. He added that he is still "quite comfortable with there not having to be an explanation."
"The bottom line is that you cannot use science to prove or disprove the existence of God," he said.
Despite his personal views, he said he makes "every effort to be impartial," and welcomes critical evaluation from students.
The seminar's impartiality came under fire in 2003, when Ingebritsen brought his proposal for re-approval to the Honors curriculum committee, a process which occurs each time.
Ricardo Salvador, interim director for the agronomy department, said the textbook being used at the time was a "religious text that did not allow for differing interpretations."
Salvador said the issue was "resolved when the instructor agreed to change the textbook." The current text is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."
William Gallus, associate professor in the department of geological and atmospheric sciences, said he feels the controversy could be avoided if teachers simply made clear what particular rules were used to define science and explained that only naturalistic explanations would be addressed, thereby excluding supernatural aspects.
"Although I personally believe it is wrong to prohibit mention of ID in the science classroom, I believe the most appropriate way to discuss it is while discussing the role of one's philosophy of science, since ID may not be testable in the ways that other scientific theories are," Gallus said.
John Anderson, assistant to the president, said President Gregory Geoffroy's position on the issue has always been that it should be debated in an open and civil discussion, as it is being done now.
"The president is fully supportive of the debate," Anderson said.
"We want to let the people and faculty involved decide on their own what role Intelligent Design will play in the curriculum."
Avalos said he is not in favor of completely dismissing the theory, but thinks it should be introduced in the philosophy or religious studies departments rather than as a science.
One person who will not be attending the discussion forums is Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," assistant professor of physics and astronomy and main proponent of introducing Intelligent Design.
Gonzales argues the theory is not based on religion.
"I don't intend to participate in an kind of forum presented by the opposing side," Gonzalez said.
A new seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.
The seminar will explore the history of biological evolution and recent developments in Intelligent Design, and according to its course description, "address why biological evolution is considered to be better science and why Intelligent Design is not."
Intelligent Design suggests that life and its components are so inexplicably complex that it would be impossible for them to develop without supernatural influence.
The initial idea dates back to arguments made by Socrates and Plato, with the term first introduced more than 100 years ago, according to the Discovery Institute Web site, but the debate has recently resurfaced.
Earlier this semester, a petition written by Avalos, associate professor of religious studies, Colbert, associate professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, and Clough, associate professor of curriculum and instruction, stating they and approximately 130 other faculty and staff oppose "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor."
Similar statements were issued at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of around 400 professors have signed the three petitions.
Meanwhile, he said, other professors nationwide have backed the movement, including the American Association of University Professors.
Avalos said to take the debate even further, he has invited Robert Hazen, the Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University and a scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory, to speak at an open forum on Feb. 2.
One professor who has already brought the discussion into the classroom.
Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics has been teaching the "God and Science" seminar since 2000.
Ingebritsen said he thinks it is important for students to be aware of his personal Christian beliefs and is up front with them from the beginning.
He described his own Christian beliefs as conservative, and said he is intrigued by the tension between natural history and Genesis 1. He added that he is still "quite comfortable with there not having to be an explanation."
"The bottom line is that you cannot use science to prove or disprove the existence of God," he said.
Despite his personal views, he said he makes "every effort to be impartial," and welcomes critical evaluation from students.
The seminar's impartiality came under fire in 2003, when Ingebritsen brought his proposal for re-approval to the Honors curriculum committee, a process which occurs each time.
Ricardo Salvador, interim director for the agronomy department, said the textbook being used at the time was a "religious text that did not allow for differing interpretations."
Salvador said the issue was "resolved when the instructor agreed to change the textbook." The current text is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."
William Gallus, associate professor in the department of geological and atmospheric sciences, said he feels the controversy could be avoided if teachers simply made clear what particular rules were used to define science and explained that only naturalistic explanations would be addressed, thereby excluding supernatural aspects.
"Although I personally believe it is wrong to prohibit mention of ID in the science classroom, I believe the most appropriate way to discuss it is while discussing the role of one's philosophy of science, since ID may not be testable in the ways that other scientific theories are," Gallus said.
John Anderson, assistant to the president, said President Gregory Geoffroy's position on the issue has always been that it should be debated in an open and civil discussion, as it is being done now.
"The president is fully supportive of the debate," Anderson said.
"We want to let the people and faculty involved decide on their own what role Intelligent Design will play in the curriculum."
Avalos said he is not in favor of completely dismissing the theory, but thinks it should be introduced in the philosophy or religious studies departments rather than as a science.
One person who will not be attending the discussion forums is Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," assistant professor of physics and astronomy and main proponent of introducing Intelligent Design.
Gonzales argues the theory is not based on religion.
"I don't intend to participate in an kind of forum presented by the opposing side," Gonzalez said.
Comments