Academic Consensus.

[busterdog]

Here's one out of left field. Perhaps this is God's social laboratory for the academy.

How about that Duke lacrosse team?

The Duke coach lost his job. Actually, he was pressured. Immediately after charges were proferred, the infuriated Dean advised the kids not to get lawyers.

88 professors signed an ad implicating these kids in abusing this hooker before these kids were ever tried.

http://www.rd.com/content/the-duke-lacrosse-rape-case/

Eventually, the kids were exonerated and the DA lost his license to practice. One problem was the continuing failure to support any charges on the basis of the DNA evidence. The DA did not reveal the DNA problems as required. The other dancer quickly denied that there had been an assault. Medical examination showed no evidence of forced sexual contact.

Now admittedly, the Duke faculty bought the DA's abusive statements. But, come on. We have trained academics buying the statements of one opponent in adversarial proceding. They didn't just get conned, they wilfully participated in attempting to destroy careers and students before the kids ever saw a jury.

In evolutionary science, aren't we dealing with the consensus of essentially the same academics?

Lest you think I am coming on too strong, we all know that the Duke story does not resolve much in terms of the creationism debate. But, it does stand for the proposition that the intellectual elite is bent, by and large. It is a question of trust, which in my view, has not been earned.

No one is looking for any evolutionary scientist to be pilloried and condemned here. But, remember one of Mark Kennedy's biggest beefs: he has been lied to. Trust is a big issue.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's American college sports - usually totally unrelated to academics.

By the way - notice how almost every single person on that list is in the Humanities or Arts. I cannot see a single scientist on the list (Cultural Anthropology & Political Science are hardly sciences.)

 

[busterdog]

yeah, before they saw the evidence. Now that they've seen it, I'd bet they'd all change their minds.

In Church, I called this woman a thief, liar and unchaste woman today. However, its all good, becaues we both understand that if it isn't true, everything is cool.

We both know that the academics had no right to convict these kids as they did.

No (see Kerr Metric's comment)

Apparently, the "intellectual elite" has earned enough of your trust for you to believe their DNA and medical tests.

Think about what you are saying. Is that a real argument?

I benefit GREATLY from many academics. GIve me some credit. That doesn't make academic consensus a good thing in all cases. The problem is that academic concensus in and of itself is deemed to be the standard by which origins are to be measured. They deserve some respect. But not that much. The unspoken premise is that academic consensus has been elevated to Olympian heights -- ie, I am consciously invoking idolatry.

Remember, the basic dispute here is the preference for academic consensus over the plain text of the Word of God. We are not talking about a choice of antibiotics.

 

[busterdog]

Staff Edit

Since academics are self correcting, then we can all agree that 20 years from now, it will all be cleared up. But, at the moment, the young earth is as likely as anything else and all young earth scientists should have as much right to a job as anyone else. Or am I wrong?

The plain text says six days. This does not need interpretation.

Test the Bible. OK. Lets see. Is there a perfect prophetic record? Yes. QED. What do the acadmics say?

 

[Gwenyfur]

A reminder for non creationists:

Rules



1. You must be a member of the Creationism subforum to participate in the wiki and/or policy making for this subforum.



2. You must be registered as a creationist within your profile to be a member of this subforum. If your posts are not in accordance with your profile, then your posts may be reported and removed.



3. Non-Creationists, Evolutionist, Theist Evolutionist posting is restricted to fellowship posts only. No criticisms of Creationism, creationists, or organizations of creationists will be allowed in this subforum.

 

[Floodnut]

No non-creationists allowed? When did I miss the re-institution of that policy. Thought it had been decided that ANYBODY was allowed as long as they did not argue against creationism? As usual I just can't figure how how this forum thing operates.

 

[HypnoToad]

No non-creationists allowed? When did I miss the re-institution of that policy. Thought it had been decided that ANYBODY was allowed as long as they did not argue against creationism? As usual I just can't figure how how this forum thing operates.

No, no - they ARE allowed, but only fellowship posts. The post that was deleted because it was debating against creationism.

 

[Dannager]

The difference is that none of the professors who signed the ad were experts in the field of "Determining Whether or Not Some Kids Raped This Girl". The scientific community of biology that supports evolutionary theory with complete consensus is full of experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Expert consensus is valid when the experts are experts on the subject of the consensus.

Of course, you already know that, busterdog. Which leads me to wonder, why would you post an OP like that criticizing evolution without due cause? Are you sure you're searching for the truth?

 

[Biblewriter]

The difference is that none of the professors who signed the ad were experts in the field of "Determining Whether or Not Some Kids Raped This Girl". The scientific community of biology that supports evolutionary theory with complete consensus is full of experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Expert consensus is valid when the experts are experts on the subject of the consensus.

Of course, you already know that, busterdog. Which leads me to wonder, why would you post an OP like that criticizing evolution without due cause? Are you sure you're searching for the truth?

It is totally false to claim that the scientific community of biology "supports evolution with complete consensus." There are many biologists who do not believe in evolution, and not all the disbelievers do so because they are believers in religion.

There is not even one alleged "proof" of evolution that is not challenged by leading experts in that particular field if inquiry. In the world of evolutionary science it is acceptable to challenge any particular evidence offered for the theory, as long as you don't challenge the theory itself. If anyone dares to challenge the theory itself, that person has set himself (or herself) up for derision and a real threat of loss of employment. Thus, the alleged consensus is arrived at by intimidation and, if that does not work, outright suppression of all disagreement.

I once shared my scientific reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution with the Vice President (who is now the President) of the company I worked for in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. These reasons did not include even one item of religious faith, only scientific facts and reasoning based thereon. He angrily answered, "You make it all seem so reasonable!" Afterward he required me to sign a paper recognizing that I had been advised that I would be fired if I shared my beliefs with any fellow employee or with any vendor selling to my employer. So much for American freedom of speech.

P.S.
I am certainly well aware that there is no such thing as "proof" in the field of science. But the evolutionists repeatedly allege that it is proven fact. And they are the ones who call their arguments "proofs" for evolution.

There is a well defined method for determining scientific truth. That method, called the scientific method, has never been successfully applied to the theory of evolution.

 

[KEPLER]

What is it about these Rules that people don't understand?

 

[imind]

It is totally false to claim that the scientific community of biology "supports evolution with complete consensus." There are many biologists who do not believe in evolution, and not all the disbelievers do so because they are believers in religion.

the nature of science, being incapable of definitive proof, will always have dissenters. i believe dannager meant to suggest that the vast majority of scientists in this field are in agreement.

There is not even one alleged "proof" of evolution that is not challenged by leading experts in that particular field if inquiry.

could you provide examples of these leading experts in their fields challenging these 'proofs'?

In the world of evolutionary science it is acceptable to challenge any particular evidence offered for the theory, as long as you don't challenge the theory itself. If anyone dares to challenge the theory itself, that person has set himself (or herself) up for derision and a real threat of loss of employment. Thus, the alleged consensus is arrived at by intimidation and, if that does not work, outright suppression of all disagreement.

i do believe you might be embellishing just a wee bit here. to suggest that consensus is obtained by intimidation, etc., is to suggest a conspiracy, and levels of 'cooperation' among scientists that is unfathomable.

I once shared my scientific reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution with the Vice President (who is now the President) of the company I worked for in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. These reasons did not include even one item of religious faith, only scientific facts and reasoning based thereon. He angrily answered, "You make it all seem so reasonable!" Afterward he required me to sign a paper recognizing that I had been advised that I would be fired if I shared my beliefs with any fellow employee or with any vendor selling to my employer. So much for American freedom of speech.

one does not have freedom of speech at work, my friend.

i am ignorant of the details of what happened with your previous employer other than what you have shared, but i would bet there is more to this, as there is always two sides to every story.

P.S.
I am certainly well aware that there is no such thing as "proof" in the field of science. But the evolutionists repeatedly allege that it is proven fact. And they are the ones who call their arguments "proofs" for evolution.

being unable to argue for evolution puts me at an obvious disadvantage in defending this.

we know that gravity 'works', but its 'mechanism' is still theoretical. something can be factual and theoretical.

There is a well defined method for determining scientific truth. That method, called the scientific method, has never been successfully applied to the theory of evolution.

it most certainly has, probably more so than any other area of science.

 

[flaja]

Since academics are self correcting,

If academics were self-correcting the innocent, but accused players, would be multi-millionaires and these quick-to-judge academicians would all be in the unemployment line- and preferably behind bars for jury tampering since their ad would have made it extremely difficult to empanel an unbiased jury.

 

[imind]

as has been said, and correctly, a group of academics in agreement does not an academic consensus make.

and preferably behind bars for jury tampering since their ad would have made it extremely difficult to empanel an unbiased jury.

i don't think you understand what jury tampering is.

 

[flaja]

i don't think you understand what jury tampering is.

Then tell me what’s the difference between tampering with a jury that has been chosen for a trial and influencing the jury pool before a jury is chosen for a trial.

 

[imind]

Then tell me what’s the difference between tampering with a jury that has been chosen for a trial and influencing the jury pool before a jury is chosen for a trial.

free speech. this is why changes of venue are granted, and why attorneys are given the opportunity to 'interview',and dismiss, potential jurists.

 

[flaja]

free speech. this is why changes of venue are granted, and why attorneys are given the opportunity to 'interview',and dismiss, potential jurists.

You are in a position of respect and honor within your community and you take out an ad saying someone is guilty of a crime? That’s not free speech; it’s libel.

 

[imind]

You are in a position of respect and honor within your community and you take out an ad saying someone is guilty of a crime? That’s not free speech; it’s libel.

was it libelous? lets examine the text of what they signed. can you provide a link? the one in the OP only has an excerpt, and a short one, at that.

 

[flaja]

was it libelous? lets examine the text of what they signed. can you provide a link? the one in the OP only has an excerpt, and a short one, at that.

I cannot fnd a complete copy of the text, but the headline of the ad was “What does a social disaster look like?”. The ad went on to claim that something had happened to the woman making the rape accusation. The implication was that the athletes were guilty. Since the players were not guilty- no crime had even been committed- the ad was libelous.

 

[imind]

I cannot fnd a complete copy of the text, but the headline of the ad was “What does a social disaster look like?”. The ad went on to claim that something had happened to the woman making the rape accusation. The implication was that the athletes were guilty. Since the players were not guilty- no crime had even been committed- the ad was libelous.

'implications' were made? this sounds rather ambiguous, and i'm not gonna call it anything without reading it. if it was libelous, it was entirely irresponsible and they should be held accountable.

i would like to know what they were basing their opinion on, as it seems irresponsible, libelous or not, to release this statement without having all of the facts before them.

either way, this hardly qualifies as an 'academic consensus'.

 

[flaja]

'implications' were made? this sounds rather ambiguous, and i'm not gonna call it anything without reading it. if it was libelous, it was entirely irresponsible and they should be held accountable.

i would like to know what they were basing their opinion on, as it seems irresponsible, libelous or not, to release this statement without having all of the facts before them.

either way, this hardly qualifies as an 'academic consensus'.

From what I gather from the net the professors simply parroted what the DA was saying.

The ad was in the Duke University newspaper, but this doesn’t matter. Outside of the courtroom, the Duke academic environment is where the accused athletes’ reputation would be most valuable and most vulnerable.

Here’s a link that has a photo of the ad, but you cannot really read it:

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/08/Features/The-Listening.Statement-2771600.shtml

I still cannot find the actual text of the ad, but there are quite a few websites that discuss it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01182007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/orwell_university_duke_profs_p_c__travesty_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm?page=0

New York Post commentator says that the 88 professors essentially said that the accused were guilty because so many other Duke students supposedly feel victimized every day by racism and sexism.

According to this website the professors, labeled the Gang of 88, issues wanted posters for the lacrosse players.

This link (if accurate) will give you some idea of the beliefs of the professors that made the ad:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/06/responding-to-syl-jones-and-nifong.html

I did find a link to the newspapers’ website, but I doubt that an ad would be archived.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/lacrossenew/

BTW: These 88 professors constitute about 10% of the Duke undergrad faculty.