265 thoughts on “Bohm Lives Again–(aka was Krishnamurti right? ;>} )

  1. You mean, like this stuff injected into an astronomy classs?

    The boundaries of science: does naturalism reach an impasse?
    o The origin of the universe
    o Fine-tuning of physical parameters
    o The origin of life
    o Information theory
    o Irreducible complexity
    o Probability and time frames
    o Human consciousness
    o Miracles and spirituality
    • The correlation between beauty and truth: the intelligibility of nature
    • Beauty, complex specified information, and intelligent design: what the universe communicates
    about God

    All science so far.

  2. OMagain: http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/Physics/PDFs/MasterSyllabi/Master%20Syllabus_ASTR151.pdf
    Behe, Michael, “Darwin’s Black Box” (1998).
    Dembski, William A. “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”
    Gonzalez, Guillermo “The Privileged Planet” (2004).
    Meyer, Stephen C., “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,”
    Spetner, Lee, “Not by Chance”
    Strobel, Lee, “The Case for a Creator. A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,”

    All science so far!

    Looks just about right for an astronomy and physics course.

  3. petrushka:
    You mean, like this stuff injected into an astronomy classs?

    All science so far.

    Not just science, it’s specifically really really proper material for an astronomy class to discuss.

  4. Rumraket,

    I love the Ball State logo, with the tagline “Education Redefined”! 🙂

    That said, I’d be perfectly happy with a course such as Hedin’s as an available module. If he wants to teach it, and students want to take it, all well and good, at a seat of higher learning. It’s about thinking, as well as rote-learning.

    He is stepping way outside his area of expertise, of course, and Biological Sciences might have something to say about the materials touching upon theirs.

  5. OMagain,

    Interesting stuff.

    Go Todd Wood! He is very able. I just don’t understand how he gets to his conclusion – he clearly knows evolution, considers it a well-supported and viable theory … but still rejects it! Just ‘cos the Bible takes precedence.

    It’s a position that’s easier to respect than one grounded in wilful refusal to understand the subject matter, nonetheless.

  6. Sorry for posting comments and then not finding the time to pick up on responses. But, on catching up, I don’t think I can add much to what others have said.

    On reading some of the articles linked, especially Karl Giberson’s reasonable analysis, it does seem an issue that was blown out of proportion by both ID advocates (notably Discovery Institute) and opponents.

    However, I note that professor Hedin has now been promoted following the brouhaha. Score one for the suppressors of dissent! 🙂

  7. References to Todd Wood (Lizzie is an admirer – see the blog roll) seem a little out of place with regard to phoodoo. Phoodoo is on record here as accepting common descent.

    (Glancing at Todd Wood’s blog he is still blithely promoting the idea of “holobaramins”)

  8. Allan Miller:
    Rumraket,
    I love the Ball State logo, with the tagline “Education Redefined”!
    That said, I’d be perfectly happy with a course such as Hedin’s as an available module. If he wants to teach it, and students want to take it, all well and good, at a seat of higher learning. It’s about thinking, as well as rote-learning.

    He is stepping way outside his area of expertise, of course, and Biological Sciences might have something to say about the materials touching upon theirs.

    I actually agree, the issue is not that he taught ID topics, it’s that they weren’t related to the real topic of his course.

    I’m perfectly fine with him teaching his ID views as part of a philosophy class of some sort. He just shouldn’t shovel it into standard physics and astronomy courses.

  9. It’s perfectly good 18th century science. I’m all for teaching history of science, and ID is part of that history.

  10. I presume Hedin is a believer of some stripe. The question is simply would he have taught that content without that belief?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    And should what we learn (and pay handsomely for) be defined by the random lot cast that is the religion of the teacher? I’d hope not!

  11. OMagain:
    I presume Hedin is a believer of some stripe. The question is simply would he have taught that content without that belief?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    And should what we learn (and pay handsomely for) be defined by the random lot cast that is the religion of the teacher? I’d hope not!

    The funny thing is not a single one of the UD denizens would have breathed a word in defense of Eric Hedin if he had been teaching a Muslim-slanted creationism/IDism.

    No, they’d be screaming for his head. We know that with a high degree of certainty because we’ve witnessed it elsewhere. We’ve seen how horrified USAian christians are when their “religion-in-school” campaigns occasionally benefit non-christian faiths. No, no, wrong god!!!

    Why is Hedin’s course bibliography so goddy with a capital “G”? Why isn’t The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism on his list? Hmm, as far as its physics goes, its been pretty well debunked, but not more so than the nutty Hugh Ross’s book which Hedin still lists. Why no books on Buddhist ideas about the nature and origin of the universe and our place within it? Why no shamanism or paganism?

    Why isn’t Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time on Hedin’s list? It’s fair to say the reason is: because Hedin doesn’t want to risk exposing his students to a scientific argument that our universe didn’t need a Creator God. Hawkings is not explicitly atheist in ABHoT; he left plenty of room for a deistic or even theistic view as he writes:

    Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

    Why is Hedin afraid to recommend Hawkings to his students? Because Hawkings doesn’t assume the answer to “why the universe?’ is God with a capital G. Possibility of god with a little “g” is far too threatening to Hedin’s worldview (just as it is to everyone at UD, etc) so he jumps into pro-christian bias and censorship of agnostic/non-christian works n his classroom.

    It’s funny that the christians are so quick to slam us, the secularists, for “bias” and “censorship” when we insist that science classes must not favor any one religion in particular. I say “funny” … but I mean stupid, spiteful, and prone to backfiring … We’re the ones protecting their right to practice their religion by insisting that no sect can coopt public education for its own dogma. We keep their children safe from being indoctrinated into the “wrong” faith by keeping all faiths out.

  12. hotshoe,

    And they’re taking advantage of that protection by becoming ever more influential in all walks of life. Funny old world.

  13. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    So not getting up and not going to do things would be unenjoyable?

    Why it be unenjoyable? That makes no sense given that you said, “everything would be enjoyable”. Further, I didn’t say anything about not getting up being unenjoyable. But let me ask you, do you currently do only ONE enjoyable thing for your entire life? No…nobody does. Everyone engages in a variety of activities. There might be days that some people wouldn’t get up and would do nothing…and they’d enjoy that. And then other days, they’d get up and do all sorts of things. Because, that too would be enjoyable.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.