I’ve already posted on the Muncie Star-Times’s article on how the Discovery Institute has reacted to the Ball State University panel appointed to investigate Professor Eric Hedin’s science class. In that class Hedin is accused of having proselytized for Christianity and taught intelligent design while neglecting alternative (i.e., genuinely scientific) views.
The comments after that piece, however, are interesting, since most of them are now on the side of rationality and against intelligent design. Here are all of them from Wednesday. I was particularly interested in the comment by Richard Geisler, one of the students who took Hedin’s course.
I had Dr. Hedin for an Astronomy course. He demonstrates utmost professionalism. He began the semester asking everyone to write down what they thought their purpose in this life was. On the last day prior to finals, he finished his lecture on the origins of the universe and concluded that there are multiple opinions to what caused it all to happen. His opinion is that a Being was responsible for it and it was his opinion that we were here to serve that Being. That was it! There wasn’t anything controversial about it.
Nothing controversial about that—if you’re a Christian! And what kind of professor begins a science class by asking his students to write down their purpose in life? Do you suppose that had something to do with the purpose of the class?
I’m very curious how this whole Hedin affair will turn out. If Ball State University wants to keep any kind of credibility as a science-friendly institution, it has no choice but to can the class. The down side is that that will make Hedin into an ID martyr like Guillermo Gonzalez (just hired at Ball State!), and possibly land Hedin a job as a Discovery Institute Fellow.
The comments:
-
The Discovery Institute is against a panel consisting of scientists. No surprises here.http://www.discovery.org/about.php
-
Amy Edmonds · Top Commenter · Works at Ball State University“Academic Freedom” outrage is the latest tactic of the Discovery Institute to wedge religion into science courses. You don’t see them demanding that universities or high schools teach alchemy, astrology or phrenology, just their pseudo-scientific theories that coincidentally support a God that resembles the Christian god. -
Gary Hurd · Top CommenterOn his Ball State biographic web page, Prof. Hedin lists “teleology” as one of his research interests. (Examined today). This is the notion that the universe exhibits “design and purpose.” It is not a secret that he is a creationist. And that is not the issue. What is questioned is whether Ball State University wants to teach creationism and award credit for honors physics? Maybe they could establish a certificate in astrology, too?The departmental review of his course obviously failed. This is not honors physics. I could see a course about creationism offered in sociology, or anthropology. But, reviewing Prof. Hedin’s reading list shows that there are nothing but creationist texts. This is not a course “about” creationism, it is teaching creationism as if it were science. There are none of the books written by scientists …See More -
Gary Hurd · Top CommenterJohn West whines that scientists are biased against magical, and pseudo-scientific thinking. He thinks that a highly respected scientist like Dr. Pilachowski should be disqualified to review Prof. Hedin’s creationist course. West’s problem? Dr. Pilachowski was elected President of the American Astronomical Society. And like all professional scientific societies, the AAS opposed fraud passed off as science. The nation’s largest professional science association American Association for the Advancement of Science has pointed out for years about ID creationism “That the lack of scientific warrant for so-called “intelligent design theory” makes it improper to include as a part of science education” (2002). According to professional creationism apologist J. West, this disqualifies hundreds of thousands of scientists. And then we learn that Professor Eflin is suspect as a “feminist.”Clearly, West has a problem with highly qualified scientists and women. I suggest he close the lid back on his “think tank” and flush it. No doubt room will be found at the “discovery institute” for poor doctor Hedin. They can always use another shill with a Ph.D.
-
Amy Edmonds · Top Commenter · Works at Ball State UniversityThe goals of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture:Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory’s scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths. -
Almitra Formisano Massey · Top Commenter · Selma, IndianaA call to action for those of us who believe science and religion can co-exist, for those of us who believe in intelligent design, and who support this professor and his desire to encourage students to think outside the box. If you stand by Professor Eric Hedin, join me in writing and calling the provost to let him know:
Dr. Terry King
(765) 285-1333
TSKing@bsu.edu-
Kevin Brown · Top CommenterWith respect no-one is saying that science and religion cannot co-exist. They can and already do for most Christians. People are saying that the the theory of ID and creationism are NOT science. There is NO basis, proof or evidence for ANY of these theories.They laregly spend most of there time just attacking Evolution without providing ANY positive proof of there own theory. Frankly there supporters begin to sound like bullies and bigots after a while. Hence why many people who understand this controversy have so little respect for these so called theories.In Fact ID is the invention of a politicaly lobby and Marketing firm. The discovery institute. (they spend most of there funding on marketing and politics and a increadly small portion on what could even remotly be considered science). -
Richard Geisler · Muncie, IndianaIf my opinion means anything, I had Dr. Hedin for an Astronomy course. He demonstrates utmost professionalism. He began the semester asking everyone to write down what they thought their purpose in this life was. On the last day prior to finals, he finished his lecture on the origins of the universe and concluded that there are multiple opinions to what caused it all to happen. His opinion is that a Being was responsible for it and it was his opinion that we were here to serve that Being. That was it! There wasn’t anything controversial about it. I would assume the course under review is similar, and even if it isn’t, it certainly wouldn’t be any more radical than the music theory prof I had that goes on rants and raves against Republicans, Christians, and claims that faith in a God is a form of mental retardation.
-
Eric Goberman · Top Commenter · BS Applied Mathematics Univ of FloridaIt should be noted that the Discovery Institute was taken to court and lost: ID is biblical creation and lying about it won’t change it.Biblical creation is NOT science, there is no “science” in ID.The purpose of the discovery institute:
a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues “demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions”,[7][9][11] and the institute’s manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[12] describes a religious goal: to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”.[13][14] It was the Federal Court’s opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition
Took the words right out of my mouth. Fingers. Whatever….
b&
Me too!
It is heartening and surprising to see that someone from BSU wrote in! That couldn’t have been easy!
My favourite line of all is this one by Gary Hurd, “I suggest he close the lid back on his “think tank” and flush it.” Accurate, vivid and creative!
+1 You beat me to it.
Mine too. And you beat me as well. But I liked it.
William Dembski as a ‘floater.’
“On the last day prior to finals, he finished his lecture on the origins of the universe and concluded that there are multiple opinions to what caused it all to happen.”
Opinions sure. Fact and evidence, not so much.
Maybe this will inspire some physicists to take a stand against the evangelical ID’ers now that the silly idea of a designed universe is being pushed in an astronomy class.
One can only hope.
“His opinion is that a Being was responsible for it and it was his opinion that we were here to serve that Being.”
I think he’s quite correct. The Hindu monkey god wants his fur groomed from time to time.
…and the occasional perfectly designed banana
Bring me a perfectly designed banana! HMG wants kumquat! Peel me a grape!
The Hindu Monkey God will have to get in line, since the needs of Bast take precedence.
(there’s two links there… should’ve separated them)
Oh nice one! 🙂
Not sure these are necessarily readers (ordinarily) of the Muncie Star-Times. Gary Hurd, for example, is a moderately well known online anti-creationist.
Well, he’s a Top Commenter at the Muncie Star-Times’s website so you can’t assume that he is just there to express a distaste for fairytales being taught as science. Anyone that uses their brain is an anti-creationist.
Gary Hurd is also virulently anti-Coyne. Assuming it’s the same Gary Hurd, which it seems to be from the writing, this is from a comment on Panda’s Thumb, “Good job, PZ. We also agreed re: Eric Hedin. Jerry Coyne is giving the creationists another win with his egotism.”
That does not sound “virulently anti-Coyne” to me. The atheist/rationalist movement could do with less splitting, so we should all learn how to have disagreements without becoming enemies. Hurd obviously disagrees about the Hedin case, and the bit about egotism was a misguided attempt to come up with a reason for a position he did not agree with. A poor choice on Hurd’s part, but there’s no sense in blowing it out of proportion.
Did you read the rest of his comment? Besides, another win for creationism, because Coyne brought this situation to light? A ridiculous proposition that makes no sense. And Coyne did it just to feed his egotism? How would you characterize a comment like this?
“Another win for creationism” – Presumably because Hurd felt that it would feed the Creationist lie that they are being censored and persecuted, and that threatening a court case might end up in a legal loss.
Coyne and the FFRF have done a decent job of explaining their position as to the true meaning of “academic freedom” and existing court precedents, so that I feel more confident in the eventual outcome than I did at the start. As for Hurd, you can tell by his participation in the above-quoted comments that he is actively on our side.
—
“How would you characterize a comment like this?”
Now who is not reading? I already characterised it as “a poor choice.” But I would advise Prof. Coyne not to let it get under his skin. Really, there is no point in making unnecessary enemies. Maybe you should thicken your own skin.
Gary was (is?) a long-time habitué of the talk.origins newsgroup. He haunts the comments to newspaper stories/Letters to the Editor about creationism and (IMHO) mostly does well in refuting them. He has also had some spectacular blow-ups with other defenders of science, not necessarily all his fault.
The thing about being a skeptic is that you have (rightly or wrongly) to focus your skepticism on your allies as well as your enemies. Sometimes that’s uncomfortable.
The only thing Coyne feeds is stray cats.
I’ve started carrying around a little bag of Kat Snax, too. Besides, occasionally I get a little peckish on the plane and they’re not half bad.
§
sub
Jerry, here’s another for your collection. The Muncie Journal and Courier has a story on the hiring of Guiellermo Gonzalez.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130706/NEWS0501/307060025/Ball-State-hires-intelligent-design-leader-teach-astronomy
In a comment to the story, Alice Kathryn Shoemaker (of West Lafayette, Indiana) says:
The astronomy course I took at Ball State was one of the most interesting and intellectually refreshing courses I’ve taken during my career as a student. We’ve been taught the big bang theory all our lives; we get it. Students deserve the chance to hear another perspective, and although much of it was from an intelligent design perspective, we were truly challenged in that class to learn to think for ourselves and form our own worldview in regard to creation, the universe, and what it all means to us. Well done BSU.
From the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Review:
Apparently this will be published in their “Bill of Rights” Journal.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=wmborj
Title:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS: ACADEMIC FREEDOM OR ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
31 pages
“In Part I, this Article suggests that universities may determine that ID is not science and thus preclude professors from teaching it in university science departments.”
“This Part will first explore the legal and philosophical debate over whether ID is science, religion, or something else.”
Interesting! Looks promising.