Month: July 2013

BSU spokeswoman hints at what will happen to Hedin’s class

July 31, 2013 • 11:46 am

Today’s Muncie Star-Press has reprinted the letter from President Gora of Ball State University (see just below), and adds this statement:

BSU spokeswoman Joan Todd told The Star Press this afternoon that the university is limited in what it can say because the review of the course is “a personnel matter.”

Todd issued this statement: “Terry King and professor Hedin have both reviewed the panel’s findings and are working together to ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline. The university is particularly appreciative for Dr. Hedin’s active participation and cooperation during this process. His academic credentials are an asset to the university. He remains an important and valued member of our physics and astronomy department.”

This means two things. First, the committee report on Hedin’s course was undoubtedly negative—in the sense of finding it insupportable as a science course and, probably, as a religion-and-philosophy course. That can be divined from both this statement and Gora’s statement that any teaching of religion has to present a variety of viewpoints.  That means that Hedin simply can’t reconfigure “The boundaries of science” class as a religion/philosophy course. It’s simply too Christian, and lacks any alternative nonreligious views.

Second, Hedin will have to reconfigure his class, if he continues to teach it, as a pure science class. Or, if he moves it to another department (something I see as unlikely), he can no longer favor any particular religious view, or even the privileging of religion over nonbelief.

Hedin is given plaudits for his contributions to BSU, and I have no beef with that. I never wanted him to be fired or reprimanded. What I wanted was for this course to be stopped as a science course, and for the religious proselytizing to cease. That will apparently happen, so I wish Dr. Hedin the best.  And the message is clear to the new ID-friendly hire, Guillermo Gonzalez. No teaching of ID (he’s already agreed to that) and, if he wants tenure, he’d better do research on real science and not ID.  That’s clear from Gora’s statement that ID is not science.

This outcome is precisely what most of us wanted, of course, except for those miscreants who include the Discovery Institute and two unnamed bloggers, all of whom think that Hedin should have been able to teach what he wanted sans outside interference.

Ball State University president unequivocally rejects intelligent design; not good news for Eric Hedin or the Discovery Institute

July 31, 2013 • 11:11 am

This email was sent today by Ball State University (BSU) president Jo Ann M. Gora to all her faculty and students.  It unequivocally rejects the teaching of intelligent design and religious ideas in BSU science classes (I’ve put the relevant parts in bold).

It looks like Eric Hedin will no longer be able to push religious ideas in his Physics and Astronomy class.  Note that Gora also says, contra P. Z. Myers and Larry Moran, that “teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom—it is a matter of academic integrity.”  This undoubtedly reflects the report of the five-person committee assigned to review Hedin’s course, whose report must have been something like “it’s not science.”

Note as well, in the third-from-last paragraph, that Gora says this is a First Amendment issue, and that BSU should “maintain a clear separation between church and state.” That is an added bonus, making it clear that at least one public university is cognizant of this issue.

I count this, perhaps a bit prematurely, as a victory.  And it would not have been possible if “outsiders” like the Freedom from Religion Foundation hadn’t warned BSU what was going on. I thank my anonymous informants at BSU, those students who complained about the course, and, of course the FFRF, whose attorney Andrew Seidel kept the heat on BSU.

Now one can speculate that this is a move designed to save BSU’s credibility as a purveyor of good science.  But now is not the time for such cynicism. I’d like to think that the university simply recognized that it’s in nobody’s interest to teach religion in a science class.

Kudos to Dr. Gora for writing this no-nonsense statement, which gives no cover to those who want intelligent design taught at that school. We can expect some fulmination from the Discovery Institute, and grumbling about bullying and martyrdom.

Gora’s letter:

Dear Faculty and Staff,

This summer, the university has received significant media attention over the issue of teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. As we turn our attention to final preparations for a new academic year, I want to be clear about the university’s position on the questions these stories have raised. Let me emphasize that my comments are focused on what is appropriate in a public university classroom, not on the personal beliefs of faculty members.

Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science. The list includes societies such as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society, and the American Physical Society.

Discussions of intelligent design and creation science can have their place at Ball State in humanities or social science courses. However, even in such contexts, faculty must avoid endorsing one point of view over others. The American Academy of Religion draws this distinction most clearly:

Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.

Teaching religious ideas in a science course is clearly not appropriate. Each professor has the responsibility to assign course materials and teach content in a manner consistent with the course description, curriculum, and relevant discipline. We are compelled to do so not only by the ethics of academic integrity but also by the best standards of our disciplines.

As this coverage has unfolded, some have asked if teaching intelligent design in a science course is a matter of academic freedom. On this point, I want to be very clear. Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom – it is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory. Therefore, it does not represent the best standards of the discipline as determined by the scholars of those disciplines. Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.

Courts that have considered intelligent design have concurred with the scientific community that it is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state. It is imperative that even when religious ideas are appropriately taught in humanities and social science courses, they must be discussed in comparison to each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.

These are extremely important issues. The trust and confidence of our students, the public, and the broader academic community are at stake. Our commitment to academic freedom is unflinching. However, it cannot be used as a shield to teach theories that have been rejected by the discipline under which a science course is taught. Our commitment to the best standards of each discipline being taught on this campus is equally unwavering. As I have said, this is an issue of academic integrity, not academic freedom. The best academic standards of the discipline must dictate course content.

Thank you for your attention to these important issues. Best wishes in your preparations for a new academic year. I look forward to seeing you at the fall convocation in just a few weeks.
Sincerely,

Jo Ann M. Gora, PhD
President

Religion of peace sentences activist blogger to 600 lashes plus seven years in jail for insulting Islam

July 31, 2013 • 10:08 am

According to CNN, activist blogger Raif Badwi, in jail for 13 months already, has been sentenced to 7 years plus 600 lashes for”insulting Islam through his website and in television comments”.

Badawi’s legal troubles started shortly after he started the Free Saudi Liberals website in 2008. He was detained for one day and questioned about the site. Some clerics even branded him an unbeliever and apostate.

Last summer, Human Rights Watch released a statement urging Saudi authorities to free Badawi.

“Saudi authorities should drop charges and release the editor of the Free Saudi Liberals website for violating his right to freedom of expression on matters of religion and religious figures,” a statement from the group said at the time.

. . . Amnesty International called that trial “just one of a troubling string of court cases aimed at silencing the kingdom’s human-rights activists.”

And there are repercussions for his family, as there always are in Islamic society:

Ensaf Haidar, Badawi’s wife, said she’s devastated by the news.

“I don’t know what to do,” Haidar said Wednesday. “Raif did nothing wrong.”

Haidar and the couple’s three children now live in Lebanon.

Estranged from her family, Haidar said it would be impossible to take her children back to Saudi Arabia. The stigma is too strong there.

“You feel like everybody’s accusing you,” she said, close to tears, in an April interview. “Like everybody’s against you, at war with you.”

Nobody does “being offended” better than the Saudis.  The guy is only about 31 years old, has three kids, and those lashes hurt. What’s below is from a Slate report on an Egyptian doctor sentenced to 1,500 lashes in Saudi Arabia for prescribing drugs to a Saudi princess that supposedly “drove her to addiction”:

It’s very unlikely that the doctor will die from his sentence if it is administered in the usual Saudi Arabian way—i.e., broken up into weekly bouts of 50 lashings each. (Women are given 20 to 30 at a time.) But a string of regular punishments administered over a span of seven months could still be dangerous. After just one round of lashings, he could suffer lacerated or bruised skin. More serious problems are likely to arise after repeated, weekly abuse—including nerve damage and infection.

Saudi Arabia does have some safeguards to protect the health of the person being lashed. For example, doctors inspect the medical condition of a prisoner ahead of time to determine whether he or she is fit to be lashed. (There tends not to be a post-lashing inspection.) And according to Islamic law, a flogger is supposed to hold a copy of the Quran under his arm to curb his range of motion and ensure that the strokes are not too powerful. Usually, the lashes are applied to the back, but they can also land on the legs and buttocks, according to firsthand reports. (The more varied the blows, the less likely they are to cause serious damage; hitting the same spot over and over increases the likelihood of breaking skin and causing infection.)

. . .Saudi Arabia metes out by far the strictest lashing sentences in the Muslim world. Both Sudan and Iran employ the practice but usually stick to the more moderate 40 to 80 strokes prescribed in the Quran. The most severe lashing assigned by a modern Saudi Arabian judge took place in 2007, when two men received 7,000 strokes each as punishment for sodomy.

Saudi Arabia, of course, is a U.S. ally.  And no apologist can pretend that this crime has nothing to do with religion. Badwi was convicted of insulting Islam, not of political malfeasance. Of course, since Islam and politics are one in many countries, I suppose one could make the case that this is about politics, not religion. But one would then be a liar.

Raif Badwi (from Amnesty International):

Raif Badawi

 

h/t: Chris

Creationism once again threatens Texas schools

July 31, 2013 • 6:25 am

In May a Texas state bill that fostered creationism—by mandating that neither teachers nor students could be penalized for teaching or doing research on intelligent design or “alternate theories” (which could presumably include young-earth creationism)—died in committee.

Here’s the relevant section of Texas HB00285:

Sec.A51.979.A A PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member ’s or student ’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

Thank Ceiling Cat for that.  But, as usual in these situations, and invariably in Texas, the brushfire is set to ignite again. According to yesterday’s TFN [Texas Freedom Network] Insider, six creationists have been invited to review the biology textbooks that will be vetted for adoption in Texas schools. (As you may know, Texas is one of the nation’s largest markets for schoolbooks, and publishers are loath to produce different editions for different states. Ergo a push towards eliminating evolution in Texas schoolbooks could have national repercussions.)

Since there are only eleven reviewers (the sentiments of the other five haven’t yet been identified), this is already a majority. Take a look at who Texas considers qualified to vet its schoolbooks (descriptions taken from TFN site):

  • Walter Bradley is a retired Baylor University professor of engineering who coauthored a book, The Mystery of Life’s Origins in 1984, that essentially launched the “intelligent design” movement. “Intelligent design” suggests a scientific basis for creationism (creationism dressed up in a lab coat). Bradley, founding fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, is also listed as a “Darwin Skeptic” on the Creation Science Hall of Fame website. He is participating in the biology review panel meetings this week.
  • Daniel Romo is a chemistry professor at Texas A&M University and is listed as a “Darwin Skeptic” on the Creation Science Hall of Fame website.
  • Ide Trotter is a longtime standard-bearer for the creationist movement in Texas, both as a source of funding and as a spokesperson for the absurdly named creationist group Texans for Better Science Education. Trotter, listed as a “Darwin Skeptic” on the Creation Science Hall of Fame website, is a veteran of the evolution wars at the SBOE and is participating the biology review panel meetings this week. He testified before the board during the 2003 biology textbook adoption and again in 2009 during the science curriculum adoption. In both instances, Trotter advocated including scientifically discredited “weaknesses” of evolution in Texas science classrooms.

Notice who’s missing from this list: anybody with a degree in straight biology (Zeigler does have a Ph.D. in biochemistry).  Could they not find professors of biology at, say, the University of Texas at Austin, Rice, Texas A&M, or any of the schools in Texas that have good biology programs? Of course they could, and I am absolutely certain those people would be willing to be on this committee. It almost seems as if Texas wants to get evolution out of the schools, doesn’t it?  Is this the best that the populous state of Texas can do?

As TFN notes:

In fact, publishers are making changes to their textbooks based on objections they hear from the review panelists. And that’s happening essentially behind closed doors because the public isn’t able to monitor discussions among the review panelists themselves or between panelists and publishers. The public won’t know about publishers’ changes (or the names of all the review panelists who are in Austin this week) until probably September. Alarm bells are ringing.

This is unconscionable! The public doesn’t get to hear about these discussions, but the textbook publishers do? And why are the panelists even talking to publishers?

The state school board has a hearing in late September, and in November the final list of textbooks will be chosen. In the meantime, there’s a petition you can sign here which simply says this:

Join us in sending this message to the Texas State Board of Education:

Texas students need classroom materials that are based on modern, mainstream science and prepare them to succeed in college and the jobs of the future. That means politicians must stop trying to undermine instruction on evolution and climate change. The State Board of Education must approve science textbooks that are based on sound, peer-reviewed scholarship.

I’ve signed it, but I live in Illinois and am a “carpetbagger.” It’s especially important that you sign it if you live in Texas.

From the TFN Facebook page:

Tex and T Rex

Chicago Tribune makes winsome internet mistake

July 31, 2013 • 4:41 am

From Gizmodo:

It looks as though they’ve fixed it, but for a glorious 16 minutes this was the Chicago Tribune homepage. It is self-evidently wonderful, but let’s still talk about just how wonderful it is.

Cat image. Test, test, test, test, test, test, test. Headline test. The cat is a kitten. The kitten is grey. Test, test, test. Updated. It’s like the internet swallowed a Gertrude Stein poem and pooped this out 16 minutes later.

Let’s make all of the homepages this, just for a day. It’d make things better.

k-bigpic

Science: it ain’t what we know, it’s what we *don’t* know that counts

July 30, 2013 • 10:44 am

by Matthew Cobb

This is a picture of a male vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster, which both Jerry and I have studied for the whole of our lives (in fact I’ve spent much of mine studying fly maggots). This was the insect that was chosen by Morgan in 1908 to study evolution – he didn’t hold with the new-fangled ‘genetics’ that had just been named. Morgan wanted to get his flies to mutate by subjecting them to all sorts of environmental stresses, but instead he discovered a white eyed fly that just popped up in the stocks.

Over the next few years, Morgan and his students – principally Sturtevant, Muller and Bridges – laid down the basis of genetics, showing that genes are on chromosomes, and constructing intricate chromosome maps showing the precise location of different genes, for which Morgan won the Nobel Prize in 1933. Muller went on to show that mutations could be induced by X-rays, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1946.

Drosophila kind of went out of fashion in the second half of the 20th century, as molecular genetics swept the board – for over three decades, this was an approach that was limited to bacteria and viruses. However, in the 21st century ‘the fly’ has undergone a bit of a renaissance, as all sorts of techniques have become available for identifying and manipulating genes. Most satisfying for Jerry and I, many of our colleagues have realised that other Drosophila are available. There are dozens of Drosophila species, each with a different evolutionary history, and therefore different genes, anatomy and behaviour.

There’s a fantastic set of fly pictures available at this site, run by two French researchers, Benjamin Prud’homme and Nicolas Gompel of the CNRS in Marseille. What is striking in looking at these images is quite how varied these flies are, and above all the realisation that although we may know a great deal about D. melanogaster, we know very little about why it is the way it is. Its natural history remains obscure.

In a way, the fly was turned into a piece of laboratory equipment by Morgan and his colleagues. Now we are turning it back into a proper organism. Here are three questions we do not know the answers to, some of which are being studied by the Prud’homme/Gompel lab:

– Why do males of some species have ‘sex combs’ (those little black dots on the front legs), while others do not?

– Why do some species have patterned wings while others do not? (Here are just three species: D. melanogaster, D. biarmipes and D. guttifera (note that D. guttifera does not have sex combs)

http://www.ibdml.univ-mrs.fr/equipes/BP_NG/Illustrations/images/melano-bia-gut.jpg 

– And finally, why does the closely-related African genus Zaprionus have these funky go-faster stripes?

Science isn’t primarily about knowing stuff. It’s about finding out new stuff. Uncovering the answers to these questions will be part of 21st century biology, and while they might seem quite unimportant to most readers, the answers will undoubtedly tell us something important about how species evolve and adapt to their environment, and how new characters arise.

If any of you are unsure as to how big (or rather small) these insects are, this will give you an idea:

drosop1

All photos except the final one (c) Prud’homme and Gompel. The final photo is from here.