Boycotting Bloggingheads
An online clearinghouse for intellectual debate has discovered the apparent boundary for its controversial conversations: Intelligent Design.
Bloggingheads.tv posted a video interview between journalist John McWhorter and Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe in late August focused on the Lehigh University biochemistry professor's 2007 book The Edge of Evolution. It was taken down the same day after the website received a barrage of online criticism for not asking tougher questions of Behe and for hosting him at all.
The explanation given for pulling the interview: "John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable."
Bloggingheads editor-in-chief Robert Wright reposted the interview four days later upon discovering the incident, but Behe says that action didn't erase what happened.
"Reposting the interview didn't make everything better," says Behe. "Yanking it down in the first place sent the strong message that this is a topic that can't be discussed rationally; it is beyond the pale, and an interviewer like McWhorter risks his career if he does otherwise."
The decision to repost the interview prompted notable scientists Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll to publicly disassociate with the website because they believe Intelligent Design is not a serious scientific idea worthy of debate.
Some religion history experts noted the ironic adaptation of Fundamentalist techniques on the opposite side of the evolution debate. "Recently 'the new atheists' have been characterized, even in some of the mainstream media, as like fundamentalists in their dogmatism," said George Marsden, a noted professor of American religious history at the University of Notre Dame. "Breaking relations with those who associate with your enemies sounds a lot like classic American fundamentalist 'second-degree separation.' "
Others share similar criticisms of Intelligent Design yet disagree with such abandoning the debate. John Horgan, director of The Center of Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, does not support Intelligent Design, but neither does he want to stop the conversation. "As long as these ideas remain influential, we need to keep arguing about them," he said.
"If I had the money to invite Mike Behe to my university, I would, and the room would be filled. I have no trouble with presenting ideas," said Denis Lamoureux, an evangelical professor at St. Joseph's College in Alberta. "But it's important to underline that the other side of the id gang, we've been blocked out as well." Lamoureux says he has been fired from an evangelical college for his belief that God used evolution, and disinvited to a university lecture series for the same reason.
Eastern Nazarene College professor Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, says it's unfair for "scientific watchdogs" to say the Behe conversation should be suppressed. "This is not a conversation in the scientific community," he says. "But it's a very important conversation in American culture. Wright is under no obligation to constrain his coverage of this topic to serve the interests of the scientific community. … America is still trying to reconcile faith in God with faith in evolution."
Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 12 comments
See all comments
Nick (Matzke)
Part of the problem here was that McWhorter was pretty much on Behe's side, and/or so ignorant about the science so as to amount to that, so what bloggingheads had up was basically an ID infomercial, not even a debate. I could how see scientists and journalists whose names are being used to give bloggingheads credibility would be annoyed with that. It's a free country, every nongovernmental individual and organization can do what they want with their own resources, and it's not censorship to decide to cover science rather than pseudoscience, or withdraw support if the distinction is not being properly made.
David Hardy
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Rom 1:17 This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, "It is through faith that a righteous person has life." 18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.
ketch22.wordpress.com
If only God can reveal Himself to man... why do we keep thinking we can convince the atheist that He exists? If the atheist doesn't believe... well then, God hasn't revealed Himself. You could part the red sea, walk on water, raise the dead and they would still find a reason to not believe. So no amount of evidence will convince them. I know God exists because He has lifted the veil from my eyes... therefore the proof of His existence is evident. Sooooooo... let God convert the heart and let us just proclaim the Truth of His word and quit worrying about trying to "scientifically" (man made) prove His existence.