Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 10 March 2006

Nobel Prize winning physicist and ID believer says definition is misleading

His name is Charles Townes. Here are his qualifications:

• PhD (Physics)
• Professor of Physics emeritus (Astrophysics) University of Berkeley
• Nobel Prize, National Medal of Science, among other awards he has received.
• Templeton Prize (2005, for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities")
• Has written extensively on the relationship between religion and science.
• Believes "Intelligent design is real."
• Describes himself as a Liberal Protestant Christian.

"I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence — certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it..."

"...People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real... Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, 'Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.' But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading." — Charles Townes.

I believe his view is important and should be mentioned in the article. --Ben 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is really not a very pro-ID statement at all for most defintions of the word ID. He seems to be using ID here in the more general sense of theism. All he is really saying is that evolution and theism don't necessarily conflict with each other. Or am I misreading this? JoshuaZ 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The link at the end of the quotes provides context (it is from an interview). I can add the interviewer's questions above each of the quotes if you want. The question preceding the second quote is important if you are concerned about the context. The interviewer asked "Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?" So Townes is speaking to that particular intelligent design (the one the DI has been pushing to be taught in schools) when he says the argument is misleading and intelligent design is not anti-evolution.

Considering the number of editors who come to the talk pages who have this view, or ask about it (wondering if ID and evolution are diametrically opposed, as presented in the article currently), and that editors have in fact been asking about this for at least 5 years (seriously, see Talk:Intelligent Design Theory), and that there are numerous examples of this usage on the Internet, I think it is very important to include this view to contrast the advocacy group's definitions.--Ben 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Townes' opinion of ID is not notable in that represents that of a very small minority within the spectrum of beliefs that comprise ID, nor is Townes widely recognized as a promintent or influential ID proponent. His opinion on the matter hardly warrants a footnote much less a sentence or a paragraph. The discussion at Talk:Intelligent Design Theory represents the viewpoints of some editors poorly read on the topic; that is the primary reason why that article now redirects to this one. FeloniousMonk 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. Read the article carefully. The interviewer is pushing the question of ID, and Townes is carefully setting out theistic evolution in response, giving no comfort to the position taken by the DI. His position is similar to that of the Roman Catholic church, and though he's more careful than Shönborn, his words could also be misrepresented as support for the anti-evolution ID. Might be worth a brief paragraph setting this out. ...dave souza, talk 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? He seems qualified enough to comment on intelligent design, it's definitely in his realm of expertise. Plus he personally believes in intelligent design too, just not the version the DI wants taught in schools. The way he sees it, their argument, the idea that intelligent design is inherently anti-evolution, is "unfortunate" and "misleading." I think he's qualified to make that opinion and it should be included in the article, if only to contrast the DI's treatment of ID. Like I said before, a lot of people approach the concept this way and I think they would appreciate Townes' take--both on ID as he sees it (not inconsistent with evolution) and on ID as the DI sees it (misusing the term, and the argument is misleading)--represented, if only in a short paragraph. --Ben 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Physics makes him qualified to discuss a biology topic? Jim62sch 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not discussing biology. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Townes' qualifications are a non sequitur; the notability of his viewpoint is the only thing that is relevent here. I didn't say he wasn't qualified, I said his opinion is a very minor position. If indeed a lot of people did view ID this way, then there'd be more evidence for that. This viewpoint is seldom invoked or cited by the leading ID proponents, and does not come anywhere near being regularly found in the majority of primary published sources on ID. BTW, that's a nice appeal to authority in the heading for this section. How's it working? FeloniousMonk 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As good as or better than your appeal to the people. Here is something for you to think about: Why are Dawkins' views included in the article? Is it because he is an authority on the subject? Or is it because you think he is notable? Or because people other than you think he is notable? By your line of reasoning, the only notable people are the most vociferous advocates and people on television and in the newspapers. This is opposed to, say, academics and scientists. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Dawkins may be a poor example since, while you might make a case that he is authoritative, he is also quite a vociferous advocate. I guess if only Charles Townes jumped into the fray and started a blog and made television series about how religion is the root of all evil (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PROGRAM IN QUESTION ALSO EXAMINES THAT PERHAPS RELIGION IS NOT THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL), he'd get a mention as you'd then consider him notable (rather than authoritative, which is bad encyclopedic style). Is this right? It seems to follow your line of reasoning. --Ben 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You've learned nothing during your month off, have you? Still the same old Ben.

And yes, Townes is discussing biology. To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed teaching ID in physics, chemistry, geology, math, art or any other class, only in biology class. Besides, to what other field does evolution (which Townes mentions four times) belong? Jim62sch 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are being insulting. Please do not talk to me this way. Furthermore, Dr. Townes was clearly not discussing biology in any capacity. --Ben 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dawkins IS a biologist, and Ben lost the question mark in the title of his two programmes (series?). Calling Townes an ID believer in the heading is misleading, perhaps mischievous. It's not ID as we know it, Scotty. ...dave souza, talk 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not ascribe mischievous motives to me. That is insulting. This is what Dr. Townes said: "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real." Dr. Townes believes in intelligent design. Also please address me, not the peanut gallery, because I find it offensive when I am right here and you are talking about me in the third person. Also please do not focus on trivialities like forgetting the question mark, because that is disrupting our discussion. --Ben 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification that you were being misleading rather than mischievous. The question mark is significant because the programmes pose a question rather than making an assertion - have you seen the programmes or listened to the radio interview about them? ..dave souza, talk 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There. Fixed. :) I hope that now, at least, you think I am not trying to pull something on you. Otherwise, I got nothin' and you will just have to keep assuming bad faith for no reason. --Ben 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ben, refering to someone in the third person is not insulting. Many people read these pages (in fact, some people might find repeated foci on "you" to be disruptive and insulting). Also, sarcastic comments about "packet corruption" are unnecessary. Now, if you read the entire section, in context, it appears that Townes is talking about theistic evolution. Furthermore, his stance is not very relevant compared to your example of Dawkins. While I strongly disagree with Dawkins, the fact is that he is much more read and more influential on this matter than Townes is. Thus, under wiki policy Dawkins is in. Townes is not notable or influential in this matter and therefore does not go in. JoshuaZ 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that talking about me in the third person is insulting. I'm sorry you don't understand why. Yes the comments about packet corruption were unnecessary, that is why I erased them. It appears to me Townes is talking about intelligent design, because that's what he said, and he is far more of an expert on the subject than you or I. It appears to me that the current article is talking about Christian Creationism, would you redirect this article to Christian Creationism? That would probably be ok with me, and I'm guessing Dr. Townes as well. Townes goes in because he is a scientist and this is his area of expertise. It is regardless of his notability or influential-ity, as it is his credibility which is the matter at hand, and he is quite credible based on his qualifications. I believe scientists are covered as authoritative under wiki policy.

Apparently in deference to the kind of objections stated above, the reference to Jon Stewart has been deleted. I personally do not have strong feelings whether it is appropriate to offer an example of the numerous parodies of the most widely publicized forms of the ID argument.

What gave rise to this kind of parody and lampooning (of which there was much) was that it was obvious to many millions of reasonably intelligent people that something was amiss about the intelligent design assertion as put forth by the DI affiliates-- a fundamentally theological, religious, or at a minimum non-scientific, assertion was attempted to be passed off as scientific and non-religious. The judge in Kitzmiller came to the same conclusion in a far more articulate way, with the weight of federal law and volumes of testimony in front of him. And what led to all this controversy and anger was a demonstrably duplicitous stance advanced by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in attempting to implement their agenda of broad academic and sociopolitical change in the US.

Personally, I would want to offer my respect with a measure of sadness about the situation to persons such as Charles Townes who use the term ID in good faith as a philosophical and/or theological term of art, of which there are a number. Unfortunately, the use of the term 'intelligent design' by others in duplicitous and contradictory ways, in a disguised attempt to force creationism on the public schools in the US, has worked its way too far into the public consciousness as something sneaky, a political maneuver or even a con job, for it to be successfully resurrected as a theological or philosophical term of art. I would be extremely surprised to hear someone, today or in the near future, say, for instance, "In what sense are you using the term?" At this stage in time, for the vast majority of folks it doesn't any longer matter whether a user of the term 'intelligent design' chooses to involve literal Biblical creationism, dynamic evolutionary creationism, or any of a wide range of non-Biblical speculative approaches-- the term is kaput as a term of art because it has been so badly corrupted.

Having said that-- it would still be interesting to see if a broad enough sampling of editors, after further discussion, saw fit to include a brief section outlining several of the approaches where it is used as a philosophical or theological term of art today. To me, thus far they appear to be just a new set of slants on the teleological argument. This is already dealt with extremely well in the existing article.

Kenosis 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC regarding opinion of Dr. Townes

Editors with an outside view opinion on this matter please post here. Outline of concerns is included in the section above.

Kindly clarify what an outside view is?

Non-regulars of course. And no cabalism please. I know who's who. ;) Put it in the above section if you frequently talk to the regulars about stuff like this. --Ben 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't limit an RFC to "non-regulars." Every RFC is open to the entire community. I've corrected the language above to reflect this. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not notable The opinion of the guy is just that, an opinion. If one of the key player would say this, that would be notable, but he is not a key player. As such, his remark has no place in this article. --KimvdLinde
• Not notable as I've said before. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this editor is a regular, and actually his 7x more edits to the article than anyone else.

• I think he is notable enough to have a paragraph devoted to him abakharev 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable on this issue. I'm inclined to somewhat agree with his position. However, he has had no signficant influence on ID controversy and therefore his opinion on this matter is simply not relevant. JoshuaZ 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this editor is also a regular.