Potentially Interesting New Book by Eric Hedin

While your attempt to cast “Intelligent Design” as a capitonym (like polish/Polish or split/Split) is valiant, it fails spectaculary since yuor subsequent comments make it abundantly clear that the Discovery Institute don’t have a specific position on ID:

The first of those also associated Hedin’s “intelligent design” with the “ID” of the DI, indicating that they’re one and the same. It’s also worth remembering that the original “intelligent design” of Pandas was also lower case, as were the pre-Pandas references to “intelligent design” by the ICR (both of which also link “intelligent design” to creationism"), as are many, many instances in DI writings. .

Your “two broad general points” which IDers agree on re “Intelligent Design” (upper case) are so general that it’s hard to imagine how they could possibly not apply to anything Hedin says about “intelligent design” (lower case).

So unless you can explicitly state what differentiates “Intelligent Design” from “intelligent design” and show that Hedin means the latter, the DI camps all separately mean the former, and confirm that Pandas and the ICR used the wrong version, I’m rejecting your assertion that there is a meaningful distinction as nothing more than a self-refuted attempt to justify your ridiculous claim that Hedin’s book isn’t an ID book…

2 Likes

I will ignore all the non-constructive flak and simply restate my original point.

When the book was mentioned by me, in the most dispassionate of tones and without endorsement of its contents, T. aquaticus immediately brought up accusations by Jerry Coyne that Hedin was all about ID and “creationism”. The only part of Hedin’s book I read was the preview on Amazon. That is also the only part available to T. aquaticus, as far as I can tell from his remarks (he indicated distaste for the idea of buying the book, and since it’s a new book, the suggestion is that he does not yet have a copy or have easy access to one), and again from his remarks it seems evident that he did not read even the part that was available to him without buying the book, i.e., the Amazon preview. Hedin does not discuss creationism in the preview. So how could aquaticus possibly know, without reading more of Hedin’s own account than what is in the preview, that the book teaches “creationism”? Answer: he can’t. How can he know even how far Hedin’s account of “intelligent design” matches that of, say, Stephen Meyer, or Michael Behe? Answer: he can’t. Yet he is willing to bring the prejudices of Jerry Coyne to the discussion of a book of which he hasn’t even read the free preview.

The issue here, as usual, is that the moment anything to do with “design” is mentioned, all the red flags pop up and the Pavlovian atheist/materialist reflexes go into overdrive. The more scholarly approach, of course, is to begin by reading what Hedin says about himself in the preview, and then, if the preview interests one, to go on and read the rest of the book, before making any judgment about whether Hedin’s conclusions are “creationist.” But I learned long ago not to expect anything resembling scholarship from the vast majority of people whose academic training is in the natural sciences only – or at least from that portion of such people who post frequently on internet sites.

Read the book if the subject interests you. If it doesn’t, don’t read the book. I fully expected that the vast majority of frequent posters here would not be the slightest bit interested in reading the book, and I suspected – and my hunch was right – that there would be attacks on me for even bringing up the book. But my announcement of the book wasn’t for the close-minded, but for those who have an open mind on the question whether physics gives indications of design in the universe. There are some open-minded readers here, even if they are the silent or infrequent posters, and it’s for those readers that I wrote the announcement.

Interesting that (as far as I could find) one of the two required texts for Hedin’s class was " God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" by John Lennox. To be blunt, if students had to read this text, they were getting a full heaping helping of Discovery Institute - crafted antievolution, supplemented with generous doses of “we don’t know, therefore God”. We aren’t talking “id”, but “ID” and even creationism. No questions about this.

6 Likes

9 posts were split to a new topic: Eddie and Mercer

It’s right in the title of the book:

“Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See”

Why atheists? It’s pretty obvious this is a book about creationism.

We also have the history of “canceled science”. Hedin was teaching a class at Ball State where he overtly argued that there was scientific evidence that pointed to the Christian God. He even went as far as to say that it couldn’t have been the “Hindu monkey god”:

The Discovery Institute is trying to frame this as being part of “cancel culture” and all the related BS that comes with it. Since the DI doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on they will try to muddy the waters with false claims of persecution.

3 Likes

According to reports, Hedin also proselytized his students for Christianity, saying, for instance, that creation was due to the Abrahamic God because no “Hindu monkey god” could have done that.

Anyone who knows anything about Hinduism would know that that’s just not Hanuman’s (the Hindu monkey god) thing.

You’d think that Hedin would have at least bothered to learn Hanuman’s name before mentioning him in class. :smiley:

FWIW I have always preferred the name my parents gave me (Stephen). Otherwise thanks for acknowledging (and accurately presenting) my judgment on the book, and you are right that I wouldn’t trust Coyne to think for me. More to the point of this thread, I can’t see any problem whatsoever with someone recommending a book to others, even if they haven’t read it, and especially if they make that clear. Once someone has read the book and has some thoughts, count me back in, but till then I’ll make use of the excellent mute function in Discourse.

1 Like

No, it’s not – not as the term “creationism” is typically used in American popular discourse about origins. I posted a lengthy word-study on the usage, right here on this site, two years ago or so, and we discussed it then. As popularly used, “creationism” is closely tied to a literal-historical reading of Genesis 1-3. You are using “creationism” very broadly, to mean “belief that the world was created.” But by that definition, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Joshua, and thousands of other people that you don’t normally object to would be “creationists.” In fact, by that definition, all Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even all Deists would be “creationists.” The term would blur into the term “monotheism” in its practical meaning and hence would be useless as a term of distinction to differentiate different kinds of religious believer. But we know it is used as a term of distinction, e.g., by atheists such as Eugenie Scott, who calls Behe a creationist, but never calls Ken Miller a creationist.

I think Hedin does in fact argue that fine tuning in nature points to a creation of the universe by an intelligent mind, and hence argues for “creation”, but whether Hedin is a “creationist” in the popular American sense of the term cannot be determined without actually reading what he writes or listening to what he says in talks, etc. It can’t be determined by believing rumors related by hostile people like Coyne.

Two things a scholar does that are not typically done here: (1) A scholar relies on the actual words of an author, not on hearsay about the author’s views; (2) A scholar either employs the normal usage of terms, i.e., the meaning that his audience or readership is likely to put on those terms, or, if he thinks the common meaning is inadequate, defines his terms so that his audience will know he is using them in a special way. To use “creationism” in a way that is likely to mislead a good number of listeners or readers, e.g., to use it to mean anyone who happens to be a monotheist, as opposed to a certain sort of literalist, Bible-focused, Protestant conservative, is unscholarly. A scholar wants to communicate, not to confuse or obfuscate.

3 Likes

I have read the sample, which can be found by clicking “Look Inside.”

I conclude that the critics of the course are correct. The only 2 required texts were a basic astrophysics text and a book which is unquestionably a work of apologetics, God’s Undertaker by John Lennox. The fact that non-Christian works were in the supplemental bibliography does not remove the taint of bias in the selection of the required reading.

If you’re going to teach at a public university, you need to make sure that your required reading list does not have a religious bias. Full stop. That Lennox’s work is in the required reading is not a problem; that it is the only philosophical work in the required reading is very much a problem.

In addition, Hedin presents the same false dichotomy which is pretty much de rigueur for any publication by Discovery Institute:

“What about intelligent design (ID), the idea that certain features of the natural world are best explained by reference to an intelligent cause rather than to any purely mindless material cause?”

There is a third way that Hedin does not acknowledge: There is an intelligent cause behind and betwixt material causes.

Hedin’s false dichotomy implies that I have to make a choice between God’s intelligent design on the one hand and Coyne’s narrative of purely material cause on the other. I find this reprehensible from the perspective of faith and indefensible from the perspective of scholarship.

Thus I conclude that Hedin’s tale of supposed persecution is better characterized as a tale of a scholar who was out of his depth in the field of philosophy, and did not even realize how he had transgressed important boundaries that need to be maintained in a public university.

Best,
Chris Falter

7 Likes

Yes, it is.

Couldn’t care less. You can try to change the meaning of words all you want. It doesn’t change the facts.

He is claiming that it was the Abrahamic God.

1 Like

So have I.

I’m confused. I made no assertion about the contents of any course that Hedin ever taught. I reported that he had written a new book concerning fine tuning. The issue raised by the responses to my announcement (which was explicitly not an endorsement of the contents of the book, as stated above) is whether someone should rely on secondhand information (from Jerry Coyne) about statements Hedin supposedly made in a course Hedin taught years ago to determine the contents of a book just published in the past few weeks. I contend that it’s inappropriate to rely on such secondhand statements (from a known hostile source) in order to determine what is in a new book. One has to read the book. This is a pretty straightforward claim, one that is accepted by all scholars in all fields, as far as I know.

This sounds great on paper, though in light of the actual practice, it is laughable. My entire education was obtained in public universities, and there was plenty of religious bias in courses that were taught – in the readings, in the classroom remarks of the teachers, etc. Far more often than not, the religious bias was in a secular humanist direction. But if you are going to hold to that position strictly, then you would have to agree that the original version of Miller and Levine’s biology textbook, which was used for years across the USA, had a religious bias when it talked about evolution as “unguided and unplanned” – and therefore that this textbook should not have been allowed to be used in any public school – which it was, very frequently and without apology. (Later the metaphysical phrases were removed, but on your account they shouldn’t have been allowed by authorities in the first place. And unless my memory fails me, it wasn’t Jerry Coyne, that great champion of religious neutrality, who demanded that those phrases be removed.)

Yes, that is a quite possible position, but I would submit that since you have read only the small part of Hedin’s book that is excerpted on Amazon, you cannot be certain how he will develop his ideas in the rest of the book until you read the rest. How do you know he is not going to consider your objection later on in the book, and deal with it? Maybe he will even partly agree with it, and work it into his discussion. To use your phrase, your assumption about what will be in the remaining 90% of the book that you have not read is “indefensible from the perspective of scholarship.”

I’m not sure on what record of achievement in philosophy you are deciding who is or is not “out of his depth in the field of philosophy,” but perhaps you can clarify.

I’m glad to use “Stephen” – I prefer full names anyway. Thanks for letting me know. I guess I call you “Steve” out of habit, based on my perception that you were one of the “Steves” on the famous “Project Steve List” worked up in response to Discovery’s “Dissent from Darwin List”. But anyhow, Stephen it shall be, from now on.

In order avoid a repetition of the Monty Python “I’d like to have an argument” sketch, I will refrain from the correct retort.

You couldn’t care less, about the documented usage of contemporary English?

Obviously you did not read my article. Nothing in the article was from me: it was an empirical study based on actual sources, including sources hostile to my own views on design. The empirical study of actual usage demonstrates the correctness of my claim. It’s not my personal usage you’re butting heads against; it’s the mainstream usage.

Does he claim that in the book I am discussing, or did he claim that in his course (as reported by Coyne)? We aren’t discussing his course of years ago here; we are discussing his new book which just came out a few weeks ago.

And note that even if the excerpt on Amazon mentions the Abrahamic God, that would still not establish beyond doubt that he was arguing for creationism. Ken Miller believes in the Abraham God, and Eugenie Scott never calls him a creationist. Do you think Ken Miller is a creationist? Would you call Ken Miller a creationist to his face, after he explicitly distinguished his position from creationism in Finding Darwin’s God?

1 Like

The first ~50 pages are about the course.

The first ~50 pages of the new book are about the course taught years ago, so your rationalization makes no sense.

2 Likes

Tell us how you determined this. The only pages I can bring up, even by signing in to Amazon to get the maximum number of preview pages, are pages 9-14 and 43-49. Of those pages, the situation at Ball State is discussed only on pages 11-14, not on pages 9-10 or 43-49. (Though there is a glancing reference to “one of [his] honors courses” on page 43 – not necessarily the course Coyne was talking about.) So how did you determine that the first 50 pages are about the course? Did you just “divine” it?

The chapter titles give no indication that any chapter beyond the introductory one continues to talk about any specific course at Ball State. The subsequent chapters may do so, but there is no way of telling that from the preview. So how do you know?

Let’s have your evidence, as opposed to your guesswork, for what’s in the first 50 pages.

I disagree. If someone was teaching a course on Thomas Aquinas, would he be required to include readings from Jewish, Muslim and atheist perspectives? If he thinks there are interesting or important works from these perspective, of course, then by all means he should include them. But if it turns out that all the most important and illuminating writing is from the Christian viewpoint, then the reading list should reflect that.

I have no problem with a university course being taught from a single, even biased, perspective. Students are not required to accept this perspective, and should not be punished if they do not. But I see nothing wrong with being exposed to it and being expected to understand it. Such consideration of and critical thinking regarding diverse viewpoints and opinions is part of what a university should foster. Or so I thought.

2 Likes

Wow! I’m still rubbing my eyes! Did Faizal Ali actually write the above? I have never agreed with so much of one his posts in all my days here!

It’s such a refreshing change, when usually on these sites the atheists say something and all the evangelical Christian TEs jump in on the side of the atheists, that an evangelical Christian TE says something and an atheist takes my side!

It should not matter in the least whether a university is private or public. Any university worthy of the name “university” will have professors who actually “profess” something, i.e., take various positions on issues, and if secular humanist professors don’t feel inhibited in biasing their courses in a secular humanist direction, then theistic professors shouldn’t feel any more inhibited. Students benefit from the clash of ideas; they don’t need to be protected.

I did my undergrad in the 1970s, when students wanted their professors to take sides and be controversial. The idea that students are weak, vulnerable vessels who need to be “protected” from hearing views (theistic or atheistic, religious or secular), is absurd, and another example of the sniveling weakness of the modern era.

A case can be made for “enforced neutrality” in lower levels of schooling (up to the end of high school), but university students are supposed to be thinking adults, grown up, living away from home without parental supervision, learning to make their own choices and construct their own view of the world, and they don’t need such protection – in a public university any more than in a private one.

The way to have a good university is not to have some “constitutional police” going over all curriculum and course reading lists to ensure absolutely perfect “balance” in each course, but to hire professors representing a very wide range of views, who strongly disagree with each other. The students can get the “balance” Chris is seeking by taking courses from professors with varying perspectives, and thus hearing all sides of the questions. So you take a course from a Marxist to get one side, and then you take a course from a Libertarian to get another. Or you take a course with Hedin that presents evidence for teleology in nature and then you take one with DeGrasse Tyson that argues there is no teleology in nature. (Or split one course into two halves and let each teacher take one half of the time.)
Students don’t need lawyers and activist political groups like the NCSE or the FFRF butting in to rule on what can be taught or how. Public universities will only be quality universities if they have the same freedom of expression for professors – including the freedom to promote particular views (always understood that the views are to be expressed with academic rigor) – that private universities have.

Of course, we have now stumbled onto a new topic, so if someone wants to discuss private vs. public university education, he should start a new page! But I have to hand it to Faizal Ali – I did not think he would ever say anything that I could not predict, but he surprised me here!

1 Like

It’s happened before. :slight_smile:

I sort of agree. These kinds of studies or interdisciplinary classes are often hobby horse courses and more personal to the instructor, and that is what makes them interesting.

As @Chris_Falter suggests, that seems to be at least part of the issue. I would expect a accessible level course exploring the interface of science and metaphysics to include required reading of books by such recognized authors such as Paul Davies or Martin Rees, which would have provided secular perspectives on these very topics. Thus balanced, I would have no problem with a expressly Christian perspective volume as well. Without the original full course syllabus, it is hard to tell.

Here are a couple of local paper write ups on the kerfuffle.

Worlds Collide: Science and Religion at Ball State

Ball State reviews classes after complaint from intelligent design group

2 Likes

Hi Eddie,

This is no longer true. I have read the entire book on Kindle.

Unlike you, Hedin devotes significant attention to the course. He devotes an entire chapter to his Ball State course along with several extended passages throughout. His course and his definition of academic freedom are among the most important themes in the book.

Since you wished to devote a thread to the book, I do not understand why you think one of its most important themes should not be discussed. Honestly, why should I not discuss what Hedin discusses?

And I stand by my conclusion, although I now add some nuance: After reading the book, I acknowledge that Hedin made some effort to accommodate dissenting views in his class. With some additional effort to balancing the required reading, he could have made the course unimpeachable.

In keeping with the way he framed the alternatives in his first chapter, Hedin did not consider my objection.

Further opinions on the book

The good:

  • Hedin’s discussion of fine tuning based on astrophysics considerations was interesting and helpful. Considering that he is an astrophysicist, this is not surprising, .
  • His discussion of beauty as a pointer to meaning/purpose was worthwhile.

The bad:

  • Hedin is fully committed to a God of the gaps methodology. For example, on p. 160 Hedin addresses the atheism of Paul Davies:
    Having taken these genuine roadblocks to abiogenesis seriously, and yet being reluctant to acknowledge a miracle for the origin of life, what else is left to consider?
    In other words, if the hypothesis of abiogenesis hasn’t been proven, Hedin contends that the knowledge gap must be filled with a miracle.
  • Hedin’s discussion of first cell probabilities is based squarely on the lottery fallacy.
  • His attempts to apply the second law of thermodynamics do not consider how the net entropy in the solar system does increase even as entropy decreases in local systems on the Earth.
  • In turn, the correlation of information and entropy (which he does acknowledge) means that local work can increase local information (which he does not acknowledge).
  • Hedin’s discussion of evolution is a hot mess; he relies on Behe, Stephen Meyer, and decades-old quotations.

I hope this is helpful to you and to other forum participants who have not read the book.

Chris

7 Likes