Charles Towne, the Templeton Prize, and Intelligent Design

[skjpm]

I don't know how to set up a link, but Charles Towne just won the Templeton Prize. He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who openly discusses what I think of as Intelligent Design. So, if a Nobel Prize winner can talk about ID, why can't they teach it in school? In science class, since here is at least one major scientist who is a proponent?

I think if you Google Charles Towne you'll find the article.

[Bridget Burke]

1. You find the article & we'll discuss it.

He won the Nobel Prize for physics? No biology background, I guess...

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. Why can't we teach it in school?

We can. Just not in a science class. Intelligent design is NOT science. You want to teach intelligent design as a sort of Deist view of the universe in a course on world religions, that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as science.

[skjpm]

4. The article is in the LA times

I just don't know how to provide a link. And, no, it's not biology--he comes at it from a cosmological perspective. And since he is a scientist, his work should be discussed in a science class.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. No, it shouldn't.

Just because someone who's done actual science comes up with a crackpot idea doesn't make it any less of a crackpot idea. Doesn't make it science, either. Isaac Newton was a scientist...he was ALSO an alchemist. Should we introduce alchemy into our science classrooms, too?

[Dogmudgeon]

3. To keep in mind about Intelligent Design

There is an old, venerable philosophical argument about Intelligent Design that has nothing to do with the new, God-washed, Jesus-simple pseudophilosophy being promoted as Intelligent Design.

The modern variant has one aim and one aim only: To shoehorn Fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system. The Christianity of the Religious Right is merely a pagan war-god cult that has been gussied up with the Bible and Jesus and enough money to buy any idea they need and steal those that they can't buy in the marketplace.

Plus, there are plenty of Nobel Prize winners who are boneheads once they leave their tiny little world. Towne may, or may not, be such a bonehead. But nevertheless, Intelligent Design will bring them out like so many buboes on a plague-stricken rat.

--p!

[skjpm]

5. I am not a Fundamentalist, and I want ID taught

I would imagine there are Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, and Unitarians, who all believe in a Creator, however they may image that, who would support ID. And here is a scientist, who, along with Paul Davies and John Polkinhorne, provide a scientific case for ID.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Then keep it in a philosophy or literature class, and start...

with Aristotle's Prime Mover.

There is nothing wrong with exploring ID, it just doesn't belong in a science class.

And it most definitely does NOT belong in any public school if anyone identifies the designer.

[eallen]

20. Fine. Let's teach the truth about intelligent design...

Here is the historically accurate opening statement: "Intelligent design is a psuedo-philosophical idea, used to bolster religion, that has nothing to do with science."

Is that what you want taught?

Would you teach it in history or philosophy class? Or would you like a comparative religion class?

[Dogmudgeon]

22. Teach REAL I.D., not the bastardized version

I have no problem with it at all, provided it isn't misrepresented as an empirical science or the revealed truth of God Almighty.

Sadly, that's exactly what the Religious Right wants. What YOU want means nothing to them except to get a name on a roster of "supporters".

The dialectic between Intelligent Design and "Blind Watchmaker" theories make for excellent constructive argument at any age. But these people are not playing for philosophical integrity. They are playing for power.

In other words, Caesarism.

--p!

[Bridget Burke]

30. Not in Science Class.

And most public schools won't touch anything like "Comparative Religion" or "Philosophy" with a ten foot pole. There's the demand for Readin' Writin' & 'Rithmatic, plus The Test that must be taught. Social Sciences are way down there on the totem pole.

And ANY Comparative Religion class would be dominated by the Programmed Robots who KNOW the Only True Religion.

[KittyWampus]

29. I Am Emphatically NOT A Creationist. You Are Basing Your Post On Bias

And lack of information.

Just because the Far Right twists whats going on does NOT invalidate the actual Science and Theory.

[Dogmudgeon]

42. I think you're replying to a different post

I'm not talking about any group of Christians except the right-wing power-seekers who will twist any idea to justify their actions.

Intelligent Design is a respectable philosophical idea. Its recent appropriation as a tool of theonomic conquest is not.

--p!

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Be easier if googling "Charles Townes"...

or the Templeton Prize.

Be that as it may, Townes was an interesting thinker, but he was NOT mainstream.

Science courses teach the basics of what is agreed to by the mainstream. There really isn't any time or need in a high school class to investigate all sorts of alternative ideas that haven't been fully reviewed.

There certainly isn't any need to confuse the philosphy of science with practical investigation. As near as I can figure out, few researchers actually refuse to say definitely that ID could not exist, but it just isn't something that's provable or observable at this time. Or worth wasting one's time on when trying to get the kids to deal with frog dissections and such.

[skjpm]

9. Teach ID without referring to the Bible

OK, we could make a rule you can't refer to any religious text. You can only use writings by prominent, peer-reviewed scientists. You could then include Kepler, Newton, Whitehead, Einstein, Townes, Polkinghorne, and Davies, among others. And since they are scientists proposing a hypothesis, it can be taught in a science class.

[immoderate]

13. Don't slander Einstein.

He was an atheist.

--IMM

[skjpm]

17. He was an agnostic. n/t.

[immoderate]

19. So are most atheists.

As opposed to "gnostic" which means absolute knowledge.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Religions-Atheist-Atheism-Agnostic.htm#Einstein

Einstein did not practice any religion, nor subscribe to the kind of god most religions promote. Why would he dedicate his life seeking a formula that described everything in the universe?

As to the "why" he alluded that was unknowable. That's agnostic.

--IMM

[eallen]

23. Science isn't about non-scientific writings by scientists.

Tell us what experiments or research any of those scientists did relevant to intelligent design.

[BurtWorm]

24. How about we make a rule that evolution must be taught in church

because Newton, while a scientist, was also a Christian?

:think:

[skjpm]

26. We teach evolution in my (Anglican) church

We look at the creation stories as narratives discussing human nature. And we revere, and pray in thanks for, the discoveries of science. You should look at Eucharistic Prayer C for a wonderful prayer of creation which includes hints of evolution.

[BurtWorm]

28. You should look at the First Amendment for a wonderful explanation

of why religious points of view are not permitted to be taught in schools.

[immoderate]

10. A science class should teach what science is.

And then the students will be able to see examples of pseudoscience and just plain bad science. ID is an example of what science isn't.

--IMM

[skjpm]

15. Have you looked at the criteria for the Templeton Prize?

I think they have a pretty good idea what science is. Why can't teachers talk about the Templeton Prize in science class?

[immoderate]

27. I looked. Apparently, you didn't.

The Templeton prize is not awarded for science, but spiritual contributions.

It's a religious prize. It says so on their site.

I would talk about it science class, to inform my students that it has nothing to do with science. As I said above, it's important to learn what is not science.

--IMM

[skjpm]

36. I read the criteria. It's a science prize.

I guess you read a different site.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. Uh...

Objective

Progress is needed in spiritual discovery as in all other dimensions of human experience and endeavor. Progress in religion needs to be accelerated as rapidly as progress in other disciplines. A wider universe demands deeper awareness of the aspects of the Creator and of spiritual resources available for humankind, of the infinity of God, and of the divine knowledge and understanding still to be claimed.

The Templeton Prize serves to stimulate this quest for deeper understanding and pioneering breakthroughs in religious concepts and knowledge by calling attention annually to achievements in this area. It is hoped that there will result from this enterprise expanded spiritual awareness on the part of humankind, a wider understanding of the purpose of life, heightened quality of devotion and love, and a greater emphasis on the kind of research and discovery that brings human perceptions more into concert with the divine will.

http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html

[gbwarming]

39. No! "research or discoveries about spiritual realities" is not science

http://www.templetonprize.org/nom_form_info.html
Selection Process

The Templeton Prize is awarded annually by an international, multifaith panel of judges to a living person of any religious tradition who has made a unique contribution to progress in research or discoveries about spiritual realities. A detailed description of the Prize's purpose, history, and selection procedures can be found in the Templeton Prize brochure. This information and a printable nomination form can also be found on the Prize web site: www.templetonprize.org.

Nominations are due by July 1 each year.

Nominators should consider that the Templeton Prize is not awarded for good works per se, but for originality in advancing ideas and institutions that have deepened the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities. The Prize judges will ask:

* What has this person done that was entirely original?

* Was this contribution primarily spiritual rather than primarily humanitarian?

* Did this unique contribution result in an appreciable acceleration in spiritual discoveries?

[immoderate]

40. Link?

--IMM

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I googled it and couldn't find the article

and I didn't see it in my LA times. All you have to do is go to the article on the web, copy the address on your browser by right clicking and paste it here.

[skjpm]

14. Now it's in Latest Breaking News

Someone posted it there, thank God--so to speak.

[DinahMoeHum]

12. Try these links on John Templeton's foundation. He ain't no fundie.

Link:
www.templeton.org


Link to Charles Townes winning the Templeton Prize:
http://www.templetonprize.org/townes_pressrelease.html


:bounce:

[Anus Retainus]

16. Templeton Prize?

The full name is "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities". http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html

The organization is set up to promote reasearch in Spritual Realities, i.e. they have an agenda.

He won his prize in '64 for Masers, and quotes the fact that he had a divine inspiration while sitting on a park bench while thinking about his work. As a result of this brilliant relevation, he now believes that religion and science are interlinked!

Boy, I can't wait to start doing some of these scientific experiments that these scientists are creating to prove ID!

I just wish I could go back to High School to join in all the fun in the science labs.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. Give them more credit

They may have a philosophical "agenda", but are not power-tripping Religious Rightists.

Also, we should be more rigorous in our use of the word "science". Intelligent Design isn't science, but that doesn't mean it's invalid or "false". The argument of Intelligent Design vs. unplanned development is itself a non-scientific argument, since it is potentially axiomatic to a number of philosophical disciplines, of which science is one.

Whatever a particular scientist may believe about insight is unimportant. Both Templeton and Newton thought they were whacked upside the head by the hand of God. If it worked for them, very good. Neither masers nor mechanics require or reject God.

The "Science vs. Intelligent Design" argument is a fallacy. It is raised mainly to promote a politically agressive religion, not science and certainly not philosophy.

--p!

[Anus Retainus]

35. Sorry...

I didn't think they were power-tripping Religious Rightists, but felt that they were out to prove their preset beliefs, and were awarding those that furthered their agenda. If they were after the "paranormal" as a science instead, I'd feel the exact same way.

Otherwise, I fully agee.

:)

[Johonny]

18. I read Charles Townes comments

His point which is religious and not scientific in nature:

"The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?


Townes Co-invented the laser and writes a great book on Microwave Spectroscopy. He is also a more than a little optimistic about the ability of high energy physics and deep space Astronomy to understand the beginning point of the universe. As far as I can tell scientist are allow to dip into philosophy from time to time.

[charlie]

21. Shockley won a Nobel

Then commenced to blather about black inferiority, sterilization of people with subpar IQs, and creating a sperm bank to preserve the emissions of "geniuses." I'm not likening ID to something as malignant as Shockley's ideas, but noting that winning a Nobel doesn't always indicate wisdom outside your specialty.

In any case, what is Townes' opinion about ID being included in science curricula? He may feel it's perfectly okay to muse publicly about the notion, but not think it should be taught under the rubric of Science. Has he called for ID in schools?

[skjpm]

25. That's not the point. I think he should be taught.

I'm not sure that you have to get someone's permission before you can teach about them. If you were a student in a physics class discussing Townes, you should have the right to raise your hand and disagree. But you shouldn't have the right to say, "I think this is stupid and I won't listen."

[Anus Retainus]

31. In physics class...

we discussed lasers and masers, and who invented them, and how they work.

We do not need to get into a discussion about the fact that one of the discoverers claimed that he got the idea for them while sitting on a park bench and received a "divine inspiration", and then go off on a tangent to discuss the how and why of where ideas come from. Wrong classroom.

[Johonny]

41. Imagine science class

Where you had to talk about every idea or thought a scientist had.

In order to talk about Newton's gravitation theory you have to spend a lot of time on his ideas of the actual floor plan of the temple of David and alchemy.

In order the learn about the Pauli exclusion principal I'd have to learn a lot about the magic longevity powers of vitamin C.

[charlie]

37. Well, yes it is pertinent

If you're going to use the man's credentials to bolster the claims of ID in a science classroom, you need to know if he regards it as science. It doesn't look like he does:

"In my view, the question of origin seems to be left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence."

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Mr Townes probably wouldn't be comfortable with his metaphysical musings taught in a science class.

[msongs]

33. your "if.....then." logic is faulty. It does not apply in this case.

you say if this guy talks about the subject, and he won a nobel prize, THEN it is worthy of being taught in school.

that is faulty logic because there is no real connection between the If and the then.

edit: maybe because he is a scientist and intelligent is not science.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/vvpb our paper ballot proposal for CA

[ComerPerro]

34. I think your answer can be found in the LBN thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1299562

"Dr. Charles Townes, a physicist who shared the Nobel Prize for helping to invent the laser, added another and most unusual prize to a lifelong storehouse of honors yesterday. In a news conference at the United Nations, he was announced as the winner of the $1.5 million Templeton Prize, awarded annually for progress or research in spiritual matters."

How do you interpret this to mean that intelligent design should be taught in schools?

I mean, it says right there: Spiritual matters.

Sorry, but religious beliefs should not be taught as scientific theories.