The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

Prof. Okimoto, your #444 concedes to Prof. Moody that option one (of the three options in my #440) is true: ID is still alive but we have no test for it yet. All along, then, your argument against Prof. Moody's view is merely that ID doesn't belong in the curriculum because we haven't figured out tests for it yet. You must concede to him that it is a live hypothesis, even if you add the proviso that it is on hold for the moment. But then you're on thin ice, because surely a college biology text book should devote a page or two to such a live hypothesis as ID. Wouldn't you rather join me in accepting option two: that ID has been refuted by Darwin et al? Or would you not at least prefer option three: that ID is meaningless since untestable in principle (not just untestable at the moment?) Otherwise, it seems to me that Prof. Moody has vindicated his thesis against the deluge of objections raised in this colloquy. Perhaps Prof. Swan or others will chime in in favor of option two and against option one. Arguing for untestability of ID leads you to option three, but seeing that option three is untenable, you can't select option two because you have committed yourself to the position that ID is in some sense untestable. Unavoidably, you slide into option one, the very option you'd set out to disprove! You'll have to revise your view that ID is untestable by considering that Darwin et al showed that it failed the test if you are convinced as I am that the evidence is that conclusive. Then you may accept option two. I know we're getting into phil of science here, which you said you don't care about...

Prof. Thurman: you're welcome. I must say to all of you that I am very glad to have part in a conversation of such unusually high quality.

: -- Jim Ryan, philosophy prof., Huron College (posted 2/14, 10:30 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.

APE-MEN
Our biological beastliness spawned our cultural greatness. But can our biological greatness save us from our cultural beastliness, asks David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington. (Password required; how to get one.)
(Illustration by Courtney Granner)