Why teach design?
We will make an attempt to get back to regualar IDEA’ish discussions here soon (it looks as if there has been too much in the way of "news" these days!), but Allen wrote a bit of commentary on the background to this summer’s class that seemed worth linking to.
And for those who have asked– yes, I expect both this blog and the Evolution List will be regularly updated this summer.
Thanks for the post. Also, if I may, I was somewhat disheartened by the reaction of some of the folks on “my side” during the initial media frenzy. I expected to be attacked (and aspertions cast on my character and motivations) by my opponents, but not by people I would expect to be my supporters.
In particular, I was very disheartened to be told by some that I shouldn’t even be offering a course like this. As you know, I believe that civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of a true scholar. In addition, I believe that given civility and courtesy (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, etc.), it should be possible for reasonable people to discuss almost any topic, regardless of whether (or how much) they disagree. It is only through such discussion that we can come to clarity on what we understand about reality.
Therefore, I believe it is contrary to the spirit of true scholarship for anyone on either side of the issue to declare any topics off limits (outside of personalities, of course).In my opinion, this includes a critical examination of the concepts of design and purpose in nature in a science course. Indeed, since adaptation is a central feature of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, and since no less a figure than Ernst Mayr has written extensively on the appropriateness of calling adaptations teleological, then it seems to me that a critical examination of this topic is not only appropriate in a science course, it is quite possibly a central topic in evolutionary biology.
As I have posted before, one of the paradoxes of the darwinian view of adaptation is that a non-purposeful process (i.e. natural selection) can produce purposeful entities such as ourselves. Investigating how this paradox can be solved would seem to me to be a lauditory goal for any evolutionary biologist.
Hence our summer seminar course, which (if all goes well and we all retain our respect for each other) will be both enlightening and enjoyable.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — April 14, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
It might of interest to know that I am considering one more “wrinkle” for the summer seminar course on “evolution and design.” As we have a large reading list (we always do - gotta have something to do while you’re working on your rain tan…this is Ithaca, after all), Will and I have always had one student be the “point person” for each major text, doing a detailed presentation and serving as a resource on that text.
What I am considering for this summer is that, once we have all introduced ourselves and exposed our biases (this is required on day one), we will each take responsibility for one of the major texts, with this stipulation:
“If you have taken a position in the evolution/design debate, you are eligible to present one of the major texts, with this caveat: you are required to present (and represent, to the best of your ability) a text from the opposite side as the one you profess.”
I’m not quite sure about what my role will be, except perhaps to handle the Mayr/teleonomy argument myself. Any thoughts?
P.S. If you’re thinking of becoming a lawyer, this would be great training! Indeed, some law schools use this technique as a matter of course…
Comment by Allen MacNeill — April 16, 2006 @ 12:57 am
Mr. MacNeil: As you said, it was a bit of a frenzy, with some odd misrepresentations on all sides of the issues. But (woot!), I’d really like to congratulate you and Ms. Maxwell on getting it off the ground at all. I’m hoping for you folks to produce a nice book out of this in the future. Universities must be open to this sort of reasoned exploration — if for nothing else — to produce works describing the issues and experiences. Best of luck to you in the civil exchange of views and ideas, and I hope you all “win.”
Comment by J. Padilla — April 16, 2006 @ 6:30 am
Allen– it would be an interesting wrinkle; but we’re not lawyers, and surely the aim isn’t shapening our rhetorical skills? That seems to be the purpose in those courses where it is required, since, after all, a lawyer has to be able to defend his case whether or not it is right.
I see the benefit in encouraging everyone to keep an open mind, especially to texts that they disagree with a priori, but it seems it might be less straightforward in practice
I’d personally much rather hear a defense of a text such as “The Blind Watchmaker” from someone who believed it than from someone who thought it pure bunk but was pretending it was convincing for the sake of the argument.
And most ID’ers have passed all their evolution exams and know how to give the party line when necessary, but it’s much more fun to defend something you actually believe.
Comment by Freawaru — April 16, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
I’m going to reserve judgement on whether I use the “defend the other side” tactic until the class has met. A lot depends on how many people in the class are willing to commit to one side or the other, and whether people are comfortable defending a position about which they have little prior knowledge. We’ll just have to wait and see…
Comment by Allen MacNeill — April 18, 2006 @ 3:27 pm