The course is over, but the conversation continues…
The notorious “evolution and design seminar at Cornell” has now ended. The final research papers have been submitted, final grades have been posted to the registrar, and the participants have departed for the four corners of the world…for now.
Having reached this stopping point, I want to say once again how much I enjoyed our time together this summer. When we went around the room last night and “summed up” what we had learned, three things seemed to have occurred to each of us:
* we learned how to construct and use logical arguments, supported by evidence;
* we learned how to respect each other and argue forcefully, without attacking each other as persons; and
* we came to clarity on what we thought about the issues presented in the course.
Everyone deserves praise for accomplishing this, and for persevering in what has been a sometimes complicated and difficult endeavor.
One person in particular deserves special mention: that is, of course, Hannah Maxson, without whom I suspect we might not have achieved anything like what we eventually did. She helped us all immensely in understanding and wrestling with these issues, faithfully attended every class session despite not being an enrolled student (the only “invited participant” from either side to do so), consistently presented an example of how to respectfully but forcefully argue for one’s positions, and spent uncounted hours setting up and moderating the two websites associated with this course, while at the same time holding down a demanding day job. For all of us, I humbly say “thank you, Hannah.”
And to the rest of you (enrolled students): my hat is off to you as well! I have taught many courses at Cornell (and elsewhere), and learned a lot from my students, but you were without a doubt the best yet. Your papers were outstanding (some actually had me gasping in surprise and admiration), and will be posted to the website soon. Thank you for being who you were, and for making this summer one of the most enjoyable I can remember. Have a great August, and good luck in whatever you do this coming year. And if you’re online or near G-24 Stimson Hall (the Biology Learning Skills Center) at Cornell, stop by the website or my office for a chat. And if you have a free hour this fall on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:10 to 11:00, stop by Call Auditorium in Kennedy Hall, where I will once again be assisting in Will Provine’s evolution course. We’ve still got a lot to talk about!
Which brings us to the rest of the story. This “conversation” is most emphatically not over yet, not by a long shot. I will be posting many of the final research papers submitted for the course to this website, for your enlightenment and delectation. Everyone worked hard at these, and all of them were interesting. A few were flat-out brilliant, as you will see for yourselves when you read them. I consider this website to be a place where “peer-reviewed” publications are presented to the wider public, because the research papers presented here by the students enrolled in the course have literally been reviewed by their peers - by all of us who sat together all those long, balmy nights in the Whittaker Room, dissecting each other’s arguments and challenging each other’s evidence. If possible, I would like this website to continue to serve that purpose; to be a place where people with perspectives from all sides of this debate can publish their ideas and get feedback from their peers. As we learned in our course this summer, this is how we can come to clarity on complex and difficult issues.
So, for all of you reading this, please stop back here, as often as you like. We will keep the doors open and welcome conversation and debate on these issues for as long as you continue to participate. And when you do, keep in mind the “rules of engagement” that made our summer together so productive and rewarding:
• Attacks of any kind against a person are never allowed, and anyone making them will be cast forever into outer darkness; however…
• Reasoned attacks against a person’s arguments, backed up by evidence, are required, and anyone participating here should be ready to defend their positions with all of the logic and evidence at their disposal; and
• Each of us should be our own most implacible critic; clarity comes not from mindless agreement nor disagreement, but from an open, honest, and unprejudiced exchange of views, backed up by evidence.
Following these rules (plus the more detailed list found under the “Rules of Engagement” link on the front page of this website) is everyone’s responsibility. That is how we built our little “community of scholars” this summer, and how we will continue to build it here.
So, thank you for all of your dedication and hard work, and let the conversation continue!
I will check back for those papers done by the students. That sounds interesting!
Best regards,
apollo230
Comment by apollo230 — August 5, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Allen,
Stockholm Syndrome?
Comment by shiva — August 5, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Hmm, blog coverage was uneven. There were no threads dedicated to the Kitzmiller trial documents, although they were on the reading list.
Comment by ivy privy — August 5, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Thanks for facilitating interesting and professional discussions.
Comment by Art — August 6, 2006 @ 2:47 am
I think that Allen did an excellent job at having the participants explore and reach their own conclusions based on extensive reading.
It also seems clear that the participants showed some significant concerns as to the arguments by Behe, Dembski and Johnson.
As far as the lacking of discussion of Kitzmiller, it must not have been a popular topic :-) After all, the court record of Kitzmiller shows the scientific vacuity of intelligent design.
While IDers have started to spin the course and the exchanges on the blog site, it seems clear to me that Allen’s work hit a nerve, for better or for worse :-)
Thanks Allen.
Comment by PvM — August 7, 2006 @ 1:19 am
PvM–
Who are you challenging as “spinning” the course? We’re not part of the political ID/evo battle and not interested in the “who won?” mentality you all seem to think necessary. We’re at college, afterall, and like thinking about and debating interesting ideas– even politically incorrect ones. We had fun, came to clarity on a great many issues, and I think can say unequivocally that “our experiment” worked. What you or anyone else think that entails for their personal agenda is irrelevant here.
Ivy– Coverage here was uneven, but we never did discuss Kitzmiller in class. It sort of went the way of Wedge of Truth, I think… afterall, who cares about reading commentary from a random judge when debating the actual arguments themselves is so much more interesting?
Comment by Hannah — August 14, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
afterall, who cares about reading commentary from a random judge when debating the actual arguments themselves is so much more interesting?
My understanding from MacNeill’s previous postings was that the entire trial transcripts were to be covered, not just the judge’s decision.
The “rules of engagement” are different in a courtroom, in ways that I think are good.
Comment by ivy privy — August 16, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
Actually, our intent was to go through the readings in the required reading list first, and then (if there was time) to cover some of the suggested readings. As things turned out, we didn’t get into the results of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, as we spent most of our time critically analyzing the required readings. Please refer to my updates at this website as to our conclusions.
In other words, we tended to stick to primary sources (i.e. books written by people directly involved in the “evolution versus design/purpose” debate - people like Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe) rather than secondary sources (which the trial transcripts and final decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover represent).
Personally, I was quite pleased by the way things went this summer. I believe that we cleared up quite a few misconceptions. Specifically, we concluded that:
1) Contrary to public perception, both Behe and Dembski’s arguments do not really address the processes of macroevolution at all, nor do they have much relevence for microevolution either.
2) Instead, they are primarily focussed on a very limited area of evolutionary theory: the origin of life and the genetic code, plus the origin of a small set of biochemical pathways.
3) Given the foregoing, it became clear to us that nearly all of what could be subsumed under the heading of the “theory of evolution” (and especially the entirety of Darwin’s original theory, which did not address any of the topics listed in #2, above) is essentially unaffected by the work of Behe and Dembski.
4) Therefore, it would be safe to say that the work of the primary authors in the field of ID theory do not in any way undermine (indeed, they do not effect) almost all of current evolutionary theory in any significant way.
Personally, I find discussion about the origin of life and the genetic code almost irrelevent to evolutionary theory as a whole. As I have pointed out in several posts and publications, these events happened at such a remote time in the past, and in ways that would leave virtually no unambiguous “fossil” remains, that it may very well be that we will never reach concensus on the causes of these events.
So what? The evolution of life on Earth after it’s origin was what Darwin was interested in, and has been the subject of study of nearly all evolutionary biologists for the past 150 years. As we concluded this summer, none of the theoretical work of the principle authors in ID theory has the slightest bearing on these processes, and therefore I believe it is safe to call ID theory, not wrong, but simply irrelevant.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — August 16, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
It’s too bad that you find ID irrelevant Allan, but I am glad to see that one thing has come clear through your classes; ID, especially as formulated by Behe and Dembski, is not creationism, creationism-lite, anti-evolution or anti-common descent (your points 3 and 4 above).
If your class even were to produce only ID critics, but those who can see this distinction, then something has been gained. Perhaps the enrolled students could point that out to more seasoned critics, such as those who testified in Dover and those who’ve commented extensively on this board.
Comment by Sanctum — August 16, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
Allen–
Did we categorize ID as challenging only OoL, or did we also find it relevant to the entire question of the usefulness of N.S., origination of novel form, function, and specified information at later times?– essentially, everything on our chart that dealt with questions of mechanism?
Moreover— must something challenge all of evolution to be relevant?
It seems to me that counterexamples abound…..
Comment by Hannah — August 17, 2006 @ 8:47 am
In other words, we tended to stick to primary sources (i.e. books written by people directly involved in the “evolution versus design/purpose” debate - people like Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe) rather than secondary sources (which the trial transcripts and final decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover represent).
Behe was present at Dover, and the transcripts would have provided an opportunity to see how he addresses strong direct criticism of his various claims.
Comment by ivy privy — August 20, 2006 @ 5:42 pm