Berkeley Professor attacks Fundamentals of Science

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>I think this is really bad news for the scientific community. A Berkeley professor is spearheading the “creationist” movement and is denying the validity of evolution. The arguments for intelligent design are simply preposterous, and goes against all the ideals of the Enlightenment. Science is based upon empirical observation of the natural world, not on the Bible. This Berkeley professor is waging a war of ignorance against science.</p>

<p>Here is an excerpt from the article in Newsweek:</p>

<p>"Soon thereafter, I.D. burst into public awareness with the publication of “Darwin on Trial” by Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who underwent a midlife conversion to evangelical Christianity. As a scientific theory, I.D. is making only slow progress in overcoming evolution’s 150-year head start. Johnson and his followers seek to overturn two of the central precepts of evolution. The first is universal common descent, the idea that every living creature can trace an unbroken lineage back to the same primitive life forms, which arose billions of years ago from nonliving matter. Biologists, armed with the powerful tool of molecular genetics, overwhelmingly accept this view. Nevertheless, I.D. proponents are seeking to undermine it, mostly through popular books like “Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells. Wells dissects some of the most famous textbook examples of evolution, such as the way peppered moths adapted a new color pattern for better camouflage after pollution killed the lichens on tree trunks. “There is a lot of ambiguity and dissent about the lines of evidence,” insists Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “It’s in the scientific literature, and we think students should know about it.”</p>

<p>Source: <a href=“MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos”>MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos</a></p>

2

<p>How can a professor be so anti-intellectual? I thought the Scopes Monkey Trial was resolved years and years ago. Is America moving back to the debate on evolution? That's crazy. This is the 21st Century, not the Middle Ages. The creationist argument belongs in the church, not the schools.</p>

3

<p>Collegeperson, just get out of this board and stop posting. You're made enough topics attacking Berkeley. Truthfully, you're probably one of the most rabid LA fanboy's I've seen, and you're already at troll status. </p>

<p>It's amazing that UCLA students can do nothing but **** around with Berkeley and not focus on anything else. Every little news article that might be negative for Cal is magnified many times through your words.</p>

<p>Honestly, who cares about one renegade professor. It even helps Cals image because it shows how active the discussion there is and how many viewpoints there are on campus.</p>

<p>Sorry to say, but LA anit worth bashing so we never go to your board. We have Stanford, MIT, Harvard, and Caltech to battle, and it's no good hurting an underling.</p>

<p>And sorry to say, but UCLA isn't even competing on Cal's level. It's like comparing the economies of North and South Korea.</p>

4

<p>Ouch, harsh.</p>

<p>It may (or may not) be attacking Berkeley but it brings up an interesting topic that is worthy of discussion.</p>

5

<p>anyway, its a LAW professor, who cares? LAW!! ha!</p>

<p>if it was a bio professor then it would be something (or even some science)</p>

<p>sorry those of you who are wanting to do law, nothing personal :D</p>

6

<p>I don't mind this post and I don't mind this professor being at Cal. Of course I don't believe in creation(ism?), but it would be hypocritical to say he shouldn't be able to voice his opinion. I mean, its not like this guy is teaching a bunch of impressionable 18 year old kids, he's teaching at Boalt, where there are briliant people who are not going to be swayed by his rhetoric. Long live free speech! (even by lunatics)</p>

7

<p>Hahahaha.</p>

<p>Yes, a law school prof making statements does sort of destroy the credibility.</p>

<p>Where is Edward Mayr and Stephen Gould when you need them? (6 feet under would be a good answer).</p>

8

<p>I happen to believe that some scientific theories have their flaws. Like the Big Bang theory, jeez... it changed 6 times in the past 20 years. So essentially you are entrusting the best theory that fits the facts upon the smartest scientists of America. How do you know all the facts are found? They're not, so the theory that you believe in as "Fact" can easily change upon an archaeologists whim. </p>

<p>While solid scientific principles are valid, their interpretations are not. </p>

<p>Professors that think out of the box, and are amazingly intelligent are always welcome at Berkeley. That is why our faculty is rated number one. Thats why I felt very very at home at Berkeley because I felt that no controversial discussion was out of the question.</p>

9

<p>This just shows a complete misunderstanding of science and the process of the Enlightenment in the 21st Century. I don't know if that Berkeley professor is high or something, but ever since the dawn of modernity we have percieved science through the lens of objectivity. That means we dont base our theories on things like supernatural beings, green alien dudes, or any other preposterous things we haven't observed or scientifically deduced. Also, I find it quite hilarious that you think evolution is just a theory. Electricity is just a theory. I mean nobody has personally observed an electron, but my computer works just fine. If you want to start a whole new "controversial" principal about how circuits aren't powered by moving electrons but rather by invisible faries carrying magical fairy dust, then I guess you can also believe that the "theory" of evolution is incorrect and jump to the conclusion that we were endowed by some creator. While you are at it, you might as well say that magetism is "just a theory" and that magnets are powered by special alien forces who use telekinesis to draw objects of opposite charge closer together. Oh and light is "just a theory" and everything we see is actually the result of a mirror image from the other-worldly dimension. I guess science no longer has any validity, and we can make all kinds of crackpot assumptions whenever we please. Who cares if we don't have any empirical evidence to back up our claims. Everything is "just a theory" right? </p>

<p>I sincerely hope that Berkeley respects the validity of science and embraces the values of the Enlightenment that have paved the road for technological progress in the modern world. To let superstition and unfounded assumptions cloud our scientific discourse is a VERY SCARY thought. I hope it is only isolated to a few ignorant professors and does not represent the views of a large public university that accepts government funding. I dont want my tax dollars to go to crackpot professors who put false ideas about scientific inquiry in impressionable young minds. That would be a damn travesty.</p>

10

<p>^ This is why Stanfurd's faculty is a little less respected than Berkeley's. </p>

<p>I was speaking of the Big Bang Theory and how it changed many times over the course of 20 years. You rooster, are drawing the conclusion that ALL theories are 100% true. I am simply saying that SOME change. And discussion of theories is a completely valid step in the process of intellectual learning. </p>

<p>Johnson released his paper about "Darwinism on Trial" in 1988. When most of you guys were born. Bringing this up now simply shows to me that some people are genuinely threatened by free speech and for some reason, think that Berkeley represents a threat to the establishment. Which it most certainly DOES. I assume that most of you guys haven't even read the core argument of his book. Law and science are completely different fields, but interdisciplinary strength, the blending of boundaries of different disciplines is truly something that occurs in the greatest fashion at Berkeley. The greatest university in the world. </p>

<p>Personally, I believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools. People who cannot handle the thought of balancing two opposing ideas without having a mental breakdown really have no place among intelligent people. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.apologetics.org/articles/staring.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.apologetics.org/articles/staring.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Johnson's critique can be described by a single word that is appropriate for Berkeley: radical. Simply put, he contends that the claims of Darwinism (that mindless processes have produced all the life forms of our world, including people) are based not on scientific evidence but rather on powerful philosophical assumptions, rhetorical tricks and manipulations of terminology. In other words, Johnson has employed his skills at analyzing arguments and evidence and has found Darwinism to be fatally flawed.</p>

<p>Johnson surveys the related areas of natural selection and mutation and shows that science has yet to uncover laboratory evidence showing any mechanism for large-scale changes or "macroevolution." He also explores the chief embarrassment for Darwinists: the fossil record. The two great facts about fossils (sudden appearance of new forms followed by stasis or lack of evolutionary change) are precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts. The greatest scientific problem of all is: Where did the first cell come from? Johnson says that the more scientists study the cell and its intricate DNA and other molecular machinery, the more frustrated they grow in trying to explain how all of this could have originated by chance.

[/quote]
</p>

11

<p>First of all, Stanford's faculty and students take a backseat to nobody. Second of all, you have a completely twisted view of the scientific method. Yes, theories can be disputed. In fact, Newtonian physics has been largely torn asunder by Einstein's theory of relativity. But you cannot replace well established scientific theories with crackpot assumptions based upon faith and not upon observation. If you want to replace the theory of evolution or disprove it, show some EVIDENCE and not mere conjecture. Saying that "things are so complex" and "a god must have created us" is not evidence. That's religious rhetoric, and it has no place in the body of scientific inquiry. </p>

<p>So yes, theories are not indisputable. But if you want to replace well-grounded theories with crackpot assumptions, then I fear for you. If you want to replace the theory of electricity with the theory of faries carrying magic dust around, you really need to get re-educated. </p>

<p>"Personally, I believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools. People who cannot handle the thought of balancing two opposing ideas without having a mental breakdown really have no place among intelligent people."</p>

<p>That would be apalling. Why should evolution and creationism be taught in schools? Evolution is based upon empirical evidence. Creationism is based on faith. Faith is not science. Faith is religion, and religion should not be taught in public schools. The neo-conservative movement in the deep south that seeks to teach creationism in public schools really scares me. In addition, why should creationism be taught when there are so many faith based explanations out there to explain the existence of life? Why don't we learn about the 1000 or so cults out there that believe that we descended from comet aliens? Why don't we learn about Hitler's "theories" about the superiority of the Aryan race and how all "animals" were created to serve them? I mean if you allow faith based arguments to pervade the schools, how do you cherry pick which ones to teach?</p>

12

<p>Well, as I said I think this man has the right to speak without reprocussion, but that has nothing to do with what he's saying. I think creationism is laughable. C'mon, basing the entire existence of the world on a book written by man? And don't they think the word began like 6,000 years ago? I've carbon dated a pair of my old gym socks and found them to be older than that. I'm not an atheist, but there are some things that I just cannot buy into. Eve was made out of Adam's rib? And then they procreated a planet full of billions of people. Boy, they must have been busy!</p>

13

<p>I think Westside dug himself a pretty big hole over there. All this time he has been touting how Berkeley is an intellectual haven full of progressive teachers who have incredible abilities of foresight and always look towards the future. But here we have a Berkeley professor who is mired in the faith-based mentality of the Middle Ages when church and state were one in the same, is wholly anti-intelelctual, and is attacking the very basis of the scientific method and the Englightenment. Trying to defend such a professor makes Berkeley look like an anti-intellectual place that hates science with a passion. </p>

<p>I do know, however, that all 40,000 Berkeley undergrads cannot possibly believe in this creationist, faith-based junk. They aren't all that crazy. I don't even think Westside believes in that. I just find it funny that Westside tries to make Berkeley look good by trying to construe the professor's actions as "open-minded." Now he dug himself a hole and is saying that creationism should be taught in all schools. Westside, how are you going to back out of this one? You just made Berkeley look far far worse, since now you have shown that Berkeley alumni like yourself believe in this creationist nonsense.</p>

14

<p>No, creationism isn't solely based on faith. Not that most of you would care to know, there is a treasure trove of information and scientific evidence that would support creationism, and there is also a treasure trove of information and scientific evidence that goes completely against macroevolution. But somehow, creationism gets bundled up into ignorant blind faith when in fact it's not.</p>

<p>I won't go into the details of intelligent design, but I suggest people look into it before they start proudly bad-mouthing creationists in general and Professor Johnson in particular. Don't simply write it off because it doesn't fit your world view or you didn't learn it in school. You show me some concrete evidence that supports macroevolution and then we'll start debating.</p>

15

<p>Gutrade, you're just as bad. So you're saying that one Cal student's oppinion on creationism makes berkeley look "far far worse?"</p>

16

<p>Evidence to the contrary of evolution, if it exists, does not point to creation by God at all. It could point to invisible aliens on Mars who created us and are now observing us. Why don't we teach that in schools?</p>

<p>It could also point to the fact that I am God and I created you all. Maybe you should worship me in school too. You see, if you gather evidence to the contrary of evolution, then you have to find evidence to back up your replacement theory. That evidence has to be grounded in true observation. Since none of us have obervered God, how can you say creationism has any scientific merit? We have observed evolution through the fact that bacteria become resistent to antibiotics, examination of DNA, fossil records, carbon dating, and a plethora of tangible evidence. You cannot use the Bible as tangible evidence any more than I can use the manifesto of a cultist leader as tangible evidence. If you are all for teaching the beliefs of all the cult leaders in the world in your biology class, then maybe you have a twisted view of science. So far, conor is the only Berkeley student who does not believe in the validity of teaching creationism in the schools, That's a very bad sign for Berkeley.</p>

17

<p>I know I have been critical of Berkeley before, but I agree with Berkeley on this one. Evolution goes against the basic principles of God. It is pure blasphemy and anyone who tries to teach it in the schools will suffer His wrath later on. I am glad Berkeley is making a stance against the scientist who try to corrupt the nation's youth. Man descending from monkeys......hahahahah! You expect people to believe that garbage? I say rock on to the Berkeley professor who actually knows the truth about science.</p>

18

<p>Okay, Berkeley is officially anti-intellectual central. I didn't know you people hate science.</p>

19

<p>Sigh, you're being closed-minded. There's plenty of evidence to support intelligent design, but you just simply haven't looked for it. If you insist, I'll give just a sample.</p>

<p>A common fallacy among so-called intelligentsia is that creationists lump both microevolution and macroevolution in the same category. If you don't know the difference, well, then you shouldn't be spouting off at the mouth about why creationists are dumb people. Not even the most ardent creationist is going to deny the existence of microevolution.</p>

<p>Let us now consider the very concept of our existence. The universe, in general, is an uninhabitable place. Now, statistically, the odds of us being where we are, well, they're not very big. The odds of the Earth being able to hold any life whatsoever is next to nothing (from Astronomy, which is a science!). The odds of the Earth being able to sustain biologically complex and sentient beings such as humans is pretty much nothing. Now factor in the remarkable fact that they Earth is more or less positioned in the greatest observational spot in the universe (nestled between two arms of the Milky Way so we can see out into the universe and our galaxy at the same time, as well as the distance and luminosity of the Sun), and despite the massive size of the universe, it's exceedingly unlikely that something like us would happen to come into existence.</p>

<p>I read a remarkable study that calculated the odds of complex biological life existing at all. It gave generous probabilities (1/10 that a planet could be in the perfectly distanced orbit around an appropriate star, when in fact it's closer to 1/1,000,000), and the results still showed that there was no chance despite the almost incomprehensible number of stars in the known universe.</p>

<p>Also, there are many flaws in Darwinian macroevolution that mysteriously get overlooked by casual studies (and I suspect many of you, too!), most glaringly the fossil record, which goes completely against the grain of what Darwin thought. Of course, since anti-creationists are vaunted intellectuals who go purely on reason and logic, it's perplexing why they haven't been able to explain it, yet still pound away at perceived flaws in creationism.</p>

<p>Now, I'm not trying to convert anyone, but the rampant anti-creationist stance taken by many of you (I'm looking in gutrade's direction) and encouraged by an increasingly cynical society is frustrating to me, and I hope that you'll keep an open mind and not automatically shut the door on Professor Johnson's ideas just simply because they aren't popular in the secular realm.</p>

20

<p>Relax, grasshopper. The interesting thing here is that Berkeley is being true to its Free Speech principles and allowing this doofus to say anything he wants without abruptly terminating him for obvious mental deficiency. Remember "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?? (for those of you who revile Humanities majors, that was Voltaire.) </p>

<p>Also--if you're so worked up about this--make sure that in YOUR public schools, this pseudoscientific claptrap gets presented as nothing more than the "fundamentalist Christian view of the world" in a comparative religion class rather than an "alternate scientific THEORY" in a science class.</p>