KJ – someday I will have to do a little research on the development of Wikipedia…My understanding is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia developed by numerous contributors, and honed through critical interaction. I find it an indispensible tool and a wonderful way to explore the marvels and complexities of our world. Even so, I see that Wikipedia demonstrates a consistent editorial platform related to Intelligent Design, and that voice is overwhelmingly critical. (I do not know if the founders of Wikipedia have a strong commitment to Scientific Naturalism, or if “atelic” materialists have simply co-opted the system, but I sense a “Naturalistic” bias in many of the offerings, especially those given to the Origins debate. (Note: Wikipedia itself recognizes its potential for bias, often driven simply by the demographic by its contributors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
I am also curious about the numerous alternate “pedia” sites that have popped up…. () Are these sites part of the Wikipedia Universe, created to make room for alternate voices… Or are these alternate pedias independent creations that have simply borrowed the look? (This may sound odd in view of what I have just said, but many of the alternate sites are far less vigorous and read like propaganda engines for their respective sponsors. (It seems then, that the best solution is to read both deep… and wide.)
Charles Thaxton ( )
Charles B. Thaxton is a creationist author and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. (And regarded as a pioneer in the ID movement)
He earned a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University. He went on to complete post-doctorate programs in the history of science at Harvard University and the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University.
Thaxton has co-authored several books, including The Mystery of Life's Origin and The Soul of Science.[1] In The Mystery of Life's Origin, Thaxton argues for "Special Creation by a Creator beyond the Cosmos", and asserts that Special Creation holds "that the source that produced life was intelligent".[2]
He was the editor of the first edition of the controversial creationism/Intelligent Design textbook, Of Pandas and People.[1] The book was featured prominently in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the sequence of drafts that show the transition between the terms "creation" and "creator" to "design", "designer", and "intelligent design", proved important in the judge's decision.[3]
Thaxton stated that he preferred intelligent design to creationism because he "wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."[4]
Thaxton and his wife, Carole Thaxton, run the "KONOS Connection," which is a non-profit educational Christian organization in Fayetteville, GA.[5] He also has a faculty position at Charles University.[5]
Bias:
Phillip E. Johnson (born 18th June 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian as a tenured professor. He is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which rejects the theory of evolution, and promotes intelligent design, as an alternative. Johnson also denies that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.[1][2] The scientific community dismisses both notions as pseudoscience.[3][4][5] (Wikipedia, Phillip E. Johnson)
Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design.
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures are roundly rejected by the scientific community. [2][3][4] The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, Behe's academic home, has published an official statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."[5] In the only court case to consider the legitimacy of "intelligent design" as a scientific theory worthy of inclusion in a public school curriculum, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge[6][7][8][9] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[10]
Behe is married to Celeste Behe, and they have nine children[11] who are homeschooled by Celeste in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[12]
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American author and a prominent advocate of intelligent design.[1] A member of the Unification Church, Wells wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism",[2][3] a term which intelligent design proponents often use to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution[4] and which he describes as the theory that various species developed as a wholly natural process "without God's purposeful, creative activity."[3] Wells's views are not in agreement with the consensus of the scientific community on evolution.[4][5][6]. (Wikipedia, Jonathan Wells)
(Ben Stein, Expelled) Rarely has a movie subtitle so capably assessed a movie’s content as does "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." There is not a shred of intelligence on display in this just released "documentary" purporting to be a careful examination of the fight over teaching creationism and evolution in America.
The movie seeks to explain why, as a matter of freedom of speech, intelligent design should be taught in America’s science classrooms and presented in America’s publicly funded science museums. But what is really on display in this film is a toxic mishmash of persecution fantasies, disconnected and inappropriate references to fallen communist regimes and their leaders and a very repugnant form of Holocaust denial from the monotone big mouth Ben Stein.
Alvin Plantinga: The more sophisticated creationists like to toss the name "Alvin Plantinga" into arguments — he's a well-regarded philosopher/theologian who favors Intelligent Design creationism, or more accurately, Christian creationism. I've read some of his work, but not much; it's very bizarre stuff, and every time I get going on one of his papers I hit some ludicrous, literally stupid claim that makes me wonder why I'm wasting time with this pretentious clown, and I give up, throw the paper in the trash, and go read something from Science or Nature to cleanse my palate. Unfortunately, that means that what I have read is typically an indigestible muddled mess that I don't have much interest in discussing, and what I haven't read is something I can't discuss.
Well, we're in luck. Plantinga has written a short, 5 page summary of his views on evolution and naturalism, and it's lucid (for Plantinga) and goes straight to his main points. The workings of the man's mind sit there naked and exposed, and all the stripped gears and misaligned cogs and broken engines of his misperception are there for easy examination. Read it, and you'll wonder how a man so confused could have acquired such a high reputation; you might even think that philosophy has been Sokaled. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php)
-----
Plantinga may be a big name in the area of philosophy of religion, particularly among Calvinists, but in the field of science he appears to be just another under-informed, religiously-motivated evolution-basher and promoter of pseudoscience. Why would we want to base a discussion of philosophy of science on the basis of his polemics? How can they help but offer 'more heat than light' on the issue? Do any of his arguments against evolution and methodological naturalism have any support within the field of philosophy of science? http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/what-role-naturalism-1-rjs_comments.html
No comments:
Post a Comment