I’m starting to give up hope for Ball State University. I once thought that Professor Eric Hedin, with his Jesus-and-Intelligent-Design-pushing science course, complete with its “No Monkey Gods” brand of Christian apologetics, was an aberration, and that he’d be criticized by his colleagues. No dice. While BSU has convened a panel to investigate Hedin’s course, Ball State was busy hiring another creationist, Guillermo Gonzalez. And have we heard Ball State faculty and students standing up for good science education? Nope. What we get are a spate of BSU students and faculty writing semi-literate and pro-religion letters to the local newspapers, defending Hedin’s right to teach creationism to students in a public university. Along with that I’m accused of being a carpetbagging tyrant who wants to control science education and prevent “balanced” discussion (i.e., keep Jesus out of science).
I don’t in the least mind the invective, though its intensity has surprised me. What has surprised me is the antiintellectualism that’s rampant among Ball State faculty and students. It’s as if they want to be seen as a benighted group of academics unacquainted with science, with the meaning of academic freedom and, apparently, with the First Amendment.
Enter another BSU academic: Dr. George Wolfe, professor of saxophone. In today’s Muncie Star-Press, “Change needed for culture of the inquiring mind,” Wolfe pronounces that I’m not only “violating the integrity of academic culture” (how, exactly, did I do that?), but am also wasting my time going after creationists. What I should be doing, it seems, is going after Nazi eugenics, something that disappeared nearly seventy years ago!
Unfortunately, there has developed within secular humanist circles a small but vocal group of cynical atheists. These are people who are intolerant of those who question aspects of accepted science paradigms, or who belittle people who study the wisdom traditions of the great religions.
Wrong: we try to keep superstition out of science, for it has never added one iota to scientific wisdom or practice. And I don’t belittle people who study religious tradition, just those who believe in insupportable superstition and, above all, try to import it into the classroom.
Rather than dealing with the challenges presented by atypical researchers, cynical atheists respond with exaggerated accusations and generalized categorizations. They are quick to ridicule anyone who entertains the possibility that a power and a consciousness beyond the human mind’s comprehension may have initiated the unfolding expansion of the space-time continuum we call the universe.
No evidence for that celestial power and consciousness, Dr. Wolfe. I likewise ridicule those who entertain the possibility that a large Jurassic reptile lives in Loch Ness, or a primate-like creature roams the woods of Oregon.
Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago is a recent example of a professor who has violated the integrity of the academic culture. His assertion, for example, that Dr. Eric Hedin, who teaches a class on “The Boundaries of Science,” is a “nutty professor” who is “cramming Jesus” down students’ throats (see The Star Press, June 21 issue) is refuted by many students who have sat in Hedin’s class. One of my own students is appalled at the attack on Hedin, and insists that Dr. Hedin presented the science accurately and never once mentioned Jesus.
Other students disagree.
Rather than proselytize his atheism, professors such as Jerry Coyne should spend more time speaking out against the abuse of the theory of evolution, as occurred in the early 20th century when social Darwinism was used to justify European white supremacy, eugenics, and the extermination of Jews, gypsies and people with disabilities.
What the deuce is Wolfe banging on about here? Darwinism hasn’t been used in that way for decades—and the Nazis really relied not on Darwinism but simple artificial selection (which antedated Darwin by millennia) to justify the Holocaust. Creationism, on the other hand, is a going concern.
The overconfidence of scientists has come back to haunt researchers many times in the past. In the mid-20th century, behaviorism as promoted by Harvard professor B. F. Skinner — that conditioning comprised the “building blocks of behavior” and only observable behaviors were worth investigating — became the credo of psychological researchers. Yet today, many psychologists see Skinner’s views as extreme.
. . . Theories are important because they help explain phenomena and predict possible outcomes, but challenging accepted scientific views is what moves science forward. As educators, we should create an educational environment where students feel safe to discuss issues that are important to themselves and the academic disciplines, as Carson Bennett and I did in August of 2009.
Thank God Albert Einstein had the guts to question Isaac Newton.
Yes, but what has moved science forward is challenges from science—not from religion. Considering the supernatural has never moved science forward a millimeter, so why include creationism in the “educational environment”? As Laplace said, we simply don’t need that hypothesis. Here Wolfe embarrasses himself by mistaking challenges that science poses to itself with the non-challenges that the supernatural poses to science. He needs to get out of the studio more.
****
As if that weren’t enough, BSU student Garett Cates contributes another letter, “Jerry Coyne’s agenda:”
GARETT CATES
After discovering from July 7’s article that Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago is behind the investigation of Eric Hedin at Ball State, I researched Coyne to find out why he is so desperate to silence anyone who doesn’t bow down and kiss the sacred cow of evolution.
I watched a video of him speaking at an Atheist Alliance International convention (2009), which anyone can watch on YouTube, where Coyne sticks his middle finger in the air, saying, “That’s for creationists.” Toward the end of the video, he says, “The real way to increase the teaching and acceptance of evolution is to get rid of religion by building a more harmonious society.” Hmm. Does Coyne have an agenda? What does he mean by “harmonious” society? Lack of resistance to evolution? If he wants to get rid of religion, then evolution (macro) has to go, too.
I am a student at BSU, and I resent this academic tyrant suppressing academic freedom and free thought. I hope the administration will support academic freedom and its faculty. I encourage everyone to read 2 Peter 3 to understand what is happening in the world. “There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.” What is Coyne’s lust? To eliminate God. Coyne is not motivated by science but by sin. Even though Satan and those deceived by him may try, Jesus Christ cannot be removed from his own creation. It’s time for his followers to take a stand.
Ask yourself this: why would the Muncie Star-Press even consider publishing a letter that is but half a step removed from the delusional fulminations of snake-handlers? Is this letter of value to their readers?
Is this a typical product of BSU, one who thinks that academic freedom is furthered by bowing down before Jesus? If so, Ball State has its work cut out for it.
If you’re a Ball State student, faculty, or alum reading this, could you please clean up your house?
I’m pretty sure Einstein challenged newton because mercury wasn’t where it was supposed to be under newtonian assumptions, not because he distrusted Newton’s forays into alchemy and biblical prophecy…
Man, I hate that Einstein canard. There’s so much fail associated with it.
I didn’t know the good professor changed professions from that of science to sin 😛
And this Garrett really hasn’t read any literature on the supposed existence of Jeebus and of god
Well, people should first define “sin” in a sensable way, before using it in an argument. Too often the religious use “sin” in a rather broad and vague definition. In science and philosophy concepts are more meaningful if they are more precise.
We are in for a long wait if the definition is to come from theologians
Oh, theologians love offering up definitions.
It’s just that the definitions are as incoherent and self-contradictory as everything else they spew forth….
b&
Oh yes, you are right. We are still waiting for them to define their god without annihilating it/him/her in the process
I believe the proper conjugation in this case is not “it/him/her,” but, rather, “s/h/it.”
b&
Am going to use that conjugation henceforth
A lot of people do not understand that if you don’t believe in god(s) then you don’t believe in satan(s) either.
Satan is the longest serving straw-man of religions.
Satan makes it easy for the religious not to hold their god responsible for his failings!
*sigh*
My feelings too.
“Coyne is not motivated by science but by sin.”
Woah! That’s amazing. I would just like to add that I will never stop laughing at these type of people. Openly and unapologetically. Their stupidity is often hilarious (alas, if only that is all they were).
In Garett’s twisted world, he’s spot on.
You see, for True Believing Christians, science is technology used to further the greater glory of Jesus, and sin is anything which drives people away from Jesus, including exposing the asses behind the curtain for the naked idiots they are.
b&
Besides, what’s wrong with being motivated by sin? There are so many ridiculous things that are sinful including I’m sure trying to figure out the natural world so yeah, sign me up for sin motivation any day!
Agreed. Sin is good stuff. We need more, in moderation, of course. Just up to the point of hedonism minus 20 percent.
Saxophonists are generally not regarded as towering intellectuals amongst musicians. Not as bad as violists, but perhaps a step behind trombonists. Dr. Wolfe would appear to be a typical representative of the species.
b&
I hate to ask where drummers fit in.
Well, put it this way…drummers have two sticks. And, when you take one of them away, you’re left with a conductor….
b&
Q: What do you call a guy who’s always hanging around musicians?
A: A drummer.
At a significant proportion of the gig’s I’ve played with a church choir, the choir director has referred to the vocalists and instrumentalists respectively as singers and musicians. And, sadly, the likelihood of the director using that distinction has generally been in close proportion to the suitability of its application…though the irony has universally been lost on the directors….
b&
Q: What’s the similarity between a drummer and a philosopher?
A: They both perceive time as an abstract concept.
I’m a drummer and I love these jokes!
Never heard the one with abstract time, so thanks! 🙂
Okay, here’s one for you:
A guy goes to a tropical island on vacation, but when he gets there, he hears this really loud drumming, and it just goes on and on and on. So he asks some of the natives if the drumming ever stops but they always look at him fearfully and say “very bad when drumming stops!”
So finally, he just can’t take it anymore and asks one of the natives what happens when the drumming stops, and the native says “bass solo.”
As a recovering trombonist,
I resemble this remark.
Recovering? Be careful you don’t slide…
/@
Re Wolfe, what is the worst generic thing you can say to a musician?
To pipe down?
You could accuse him of being a wannabe critic. Not sure how much lower you could get, even with specificity.
b&
” ‘Thank God Albert Einstein had the guts to question Isaac Newton.’ ”
This is the kind of imprecise statement that is a mark of the duplicity of the religulous.
Einstein didn’t really question Newton, because Newton’s laws are built into Relativity. What Einstein did was very reasonably assume that there were regimes of data that mightn’t be accommodated by Newtonian Mechanics. Whatever he came up with, Einstein knew that it had to produce Newtonian Mechanics within the regime of data that Newton used.
“the duplicity of the religulous”
That’s it in a nutshell. They are duplicitous. In response to which it is entirely reasonable to be a member of “a [not so] small but vocal group of *cynical* atheists”
Yes, in fact Newton´s laws are used by NASA´s computers for the computation of spacecraft trajectories. Also the large supercomputer models of the universe rely on Newton´s law of gravitation. The real challenge to Newton´s laws come from MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics–something the people at Ball probably never heard from. And NASA is a bit mystified by the fact that spacecraft flybys around Earth or Jupiter show tiny deviations from Newtonian dynamics.
Quote:-
What do you think of this?:-
Why the Universe needs Dark Matter [& not MOND] in one graph
Can you supply a link or reference for what NASA is “mystified” by? I know about the Pioneer/Voyager anomaly which has been resolved so I assume you’re referring to something else.
It is a timing anomaly vs radio contacts, which can be interpreted as a deviation from gravity predictions. But it is all over the place, so it would be surprising if it is anything than systematics.
It tells us of the desperation among the “but I don’t get relativity” crowd.
That is more stressful for alternative gravity, as is the cluster collisions which each would either need DM or individual alternate gravity theories. But I think the acoustic peaks of the cosmic microwave background is a more revealing graph. There you see DM particle effects directly and it shows you have DM irrespective of alternate gravity.
Of course GR is then just the simplest gravity, so the observations doesn’t stress MOND as such (which simply can’t predict the CMB features as theories using GR can). But it shows that MOND would be deficient (doesn’t account for DM).
MOND was never much of a challenger (didn’t move consensus) and is soundly rejected by all. (Except as always some of the fringe.)
The last holdout was that it predicted galaxy rotation curves, but since the Eris simulation last year GR does better. As it turned out that you even _need_ DM to nail some of the more fine details of galaxy dynamics, MOND went (IMHO, of course) from “a remote possibility” to “no way” in a very short time.
The strongest argument for dark matter is the gravitational lensing observed all over the place in space. However this does not rule out that the rotation curves of certain galaxies still might need some other explanation.
This may interest some of us:
http://manchestergazette.co.uk/salford-university-scientists-modify-einsteins-equations-and-cast-doubt-on-dark-matter/
“Einstein knew that it had to produce Newtonian Mechanics within the regime of data that Newton used.”
Actually Hendrik Antoon Lorentz did this job (hence Lorentz transformation and Lorentz factor), but your point still stands.
The subject here is gravity (ie general relativity). Lorentz’s contribution was to special relativity.
I don’t know why Wolfe would want to introduce the heretic Newton in his defense for religion. But FWIW, Newton was likely very well aware of the possibility and even equal footing of later galilean relativity, which was the major difference before EM theory was developed.
What Newton foremost needed to do was to establish the existence of an “absolute” space separate from the material objects it contained. To then reinsert a relative observer physics would have muddied the waters for him.
Excellent point!
Uh, oh. The significance of EM theory is of course the universal speed limit it predicts. This was never a concern for Newton, his “action at a distance” was always immediate, so there was never any inherent, misunderstood special relativity in his theory.
Somewhat related with relativity, I have been told that the immediate action made a field more of a math trick than a real system for Newton and his contemporaries.
Do not be deceived by Satan’s employment of desperately silencing, scoffing sinners waving a menacing middle finger with lust.
Incorporating intelligent design into a science course is more extreme than incorporating harp into a saxophone course. Harp and saxophone are at least both music.
Harpists are musicians, yes. But saxophonists? That’s debatable….
b&
Really, Ben? You’re dismissing Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Coleman Hawkins, and Stan Getz as “not musicians”?
No, of course not. It’s just part of the back-stage schtick.
Ask a saxophonist what he thinks of trumpeters and he’ll tell you not only that we use our personalities for birth control, but that it only takes one of us to screw in a lightbulb because we just stand there holding the bulb steady while the rest of the world revolves around us.
b&
(…and, between you, me, and this here fencepost…we read Bolero at the last session of the Arizona Repertory Orchestra this past Tuesday. I played third / assistant first. Of all the soloists in the exposition, Brian Murphy on soprano saxophone was by far the best. b&)
What’s the definition of a trumpet quartet? A: One guy who thinks he’s hot stuff and three other guys who know they’re better.
When I was at ASU, somebody hired me and three others to play a fanfare for Dan Quayle’s grand entrance at his fiftieth birthday party. After nobody could think of a suitable fanfare in the literature, I offered to cobble something together, loosely inspired by John Williams (meaning inspired by practically every other composer in all of recorded history).
I scored it for solo trumpet, principal trumpet, lead trumpet, and first trumpet.
I might still have it buried in a filing cabinet somewhere….
b&
I thought that was the jazz vocalist – with the light bulb. So what’s the difference between a tuba player driving a car and an elephant driving a car?
Ooh — this one’s new to me. Do tell!
b&
(The lightbulb joke also works with operatic sopranos…as well as some less family-friendly ones, including one about a Mustang. b&)
The elephant might be on his way to a gig.
Ah, a less-harsh variation on the dead skunk / trombonist joke I related yesterday. Yours still had me grappling for the punch line. (still waking up)
Q: What’s the definition of a minor second interval?
A: Two Soprano Sax players reading off the same part.
As far as I can tell, Christianity is motivated by sin, that of Adam and Eve, which Jesus was sent to, well, do something or other about but it all seems a bit ill defined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin
Aside from that, if there is a professor of saxophone, is there a professor of air guitar? If not, to whom do I apply?
University of Salford.
No, really.
This reminds me of that famous Churchill quote “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something in your life.”
Good on you, Prof Coyne. It seems you’re ruffling their feathers. And these appear to be feathers that are ripe for a little ruffling. Keep it up!
+1
For the delightful Garrett,
“(There) are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures,” 2 Peter 3:16.
The term ‘primate-like’ is a bit problematic, but as a citizen of that great state, I can assure you that there are many, many odd primates living in Oregon’s woods…
Some of this stuff you might find in the National Enquirer.Don’t give them an interview.
Wow… you’ve been called a “fanatic”, and now it seems you have an “agenda”. Congrats!
I hope, for the sake of America, that Ball State is not representative of higher education.
These budding students should ask themselves: What if Hedin used his platform to proselytize for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Would that be consistent with their notion of academic freedom? And how often did they use the Argumentum ad My Personal Beliefsum?
Hedin and Gonzalez both got their Ph.D.s from the University of Washington, up the street from the Discovery Institute. Coincidence?
A required response to this ignorant post (altho I suspect you were just trying to be facetious): http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-washington-seattle-campus-236948/overall-rankings
The professor of saxophone was using the
argumentum ad Nazium.
Isn’t the greatest academic freedom of all, the freedom from ignorance?
Instead of defending Hedin why aren’t they promoting that?
The greatest part of any truly academic environment is that you’d better bring your ‘A’ game if you want to be respected.
I’ll be interested to hear what scientists at BSU have to say. So far we’ve heard from Riley (English) and Wolfe (Music). Will scientists in Indiana stand up for science? James Watson comes to mind.
“Wrong: we try to keep superstition out of science, for it has never added one iota to scientific wisdom or practice”
I don’t know that that’s strictly true. How many discoveries are “Let’s demonstrate god’s elegance and works”. Followed by “hey, wait a minute…” after getting the data.
Of course, the proper place for that would be a history of science course, because I think we’re well past the point of using superstition as any sort of starting part.
This is probably cherry picking. How many fruitLESS ideas in science came from religious seeds? A stopped clock is right twice a day….
It is quite clear now that Ball State is a fifth tier school by looking at the people it hires on its staff and the low calibre of lack of thinking by many of its students.
It is not surprising that the professor of saxophone blows his own horn for gawd and has a tin ear when it comes to a real science like evolution. He speaks with a clef(t) palate. He comes off as a very sour note.
The anti-intellectualism of these folks has good timing with Maher’s New Rules from this past Friday where he talks about the “smart stupid person”. I love how Maher describes them as, “anti-intellectuals with advanced degrees”. The heaven tripping neuroscientist is mentioned as well as Dr. Ben Carson.
http://youtu.be/wKBiUkG4_p0
Okay I just pasted as usual…don’t know why the weird embedding happened. Curse you technology…curse you.
I would wager that what’s going on is something like this: there are plenty of BSU faculty who are embarrassed and horrified by Hedin, but who are reluctant to say anything publicly since the internal investigation has not released its findings. The general code of collegiality at most universities–and especially lower-tier state schools (I’ve put my time in teaching at one, so I’m not insulting anyone’s job)–is to avoid publicly criticizing a colleague unless there are proven charges of some kind (or unless your colleague is a real asshole). Just look at how tolerant Michael Behe’s colleagues have been at Lehigh, even though they clearly reject his views.
That’s not to say that BSU faculty should stay silent, but I kind of understand why many probably are (for now at least). On the other hand, defending a colleague is seen as virtuous, so those faculty with attitudes that lean towards Hedin’s have much less compunction about speaking up.
Which is all to say that I wouldn’t necessarily write off BSU faculty and students entirely–I’ll hope that, once the panel has reached its conclusions, we’ll hear from some of them. But we might not: “civility” is a powerful social instrument in the rural midwest…
I understand the colleagues keeping their heads down, but there have to be lots of real scientists in the country who could speak up besides Jerry. I have a google alert for “Eric Hedin” and almost all the alerts have been for Christian or ID sites. I’d like to know why they’re biting their tongues
I’ve been puzzled by that, too. Hell, even the Squidly One has been rooting for Hedin. Doesn’t make sense.
b&
Well, most, probably, have never heard of it. Some, like PZ and Larry Moran, seem so dazzled by the illusion of academic freedom that they think nothing else matters. Others feel, as some have argued right here, that since it’s at the university level, there are no legal issues involved at all, certainly not Constitutional issues, and that the whole matter is an internal affair.
It will be interesting to see what action the FFRF thinks is feasible when, as I think is most likely, Ball St stonewalls the entire affair, or, at best, makes a few cosmetic changes. After all, the department chair is on record as saying the university has approved the course content and that should be the end of it. I hope the FFRF has a few plaintiffs lined up.
“Just look at how tolerant Michael Behe’s colleagues have been at Lehigh, even though they clearly reject his views.”
They seem to have no other option. That being said, the extremely clear message on their biology department’s website is far more than BSU appears to be doing.
Lehigh Biology Department Site: “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
BSU Astrology, I mean Astronomy Site: “Do you gaze up at the sky and wonder how it all works? Why is the sky blue? What makes up the stars in the night sky? These are questions that physics and astronomy can answer. Physics is the study of everything around us, from the smallest particle in an atom to the ever-expanding universe.”
The bio department statement SHOULD read that IDC not only hasn’t been tested, its proponents have yet to propose how it can be tested. The odious Templeton Foundation put out an RFA for ID a few years ago and received ZERO applications. NOBODY in science passes up a chance for funding!
Dear Mr. BSU student,
Who was it that wrote that the bible is “… a groundwork of vulgar ignorance of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticisms and fabrications?” It is “…compounded from the heathen mysteries, a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which Jesus, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”
Hint: His initials are T.J.
Stating that you need to “destroy religion” so you can prove Evolution true and “promote harmonious society” is twisted. Whereas I certainly don’t promote teaching theism or creationism in college classrooms, “promoting harmony” is about as sickening a phrase one can come up with by stating that “getting rid of religion promotes harmonious society.”
When scientists start talking with the phrases of totalitarian dictators, I get concerned. It is not enough to say “well a few people here want to teach creationism in classrooms, so obviously we should exterminate religion.”
That just leads me to believe the state is creating these false flag religious persons who demand the most foolish things possible.
You’re mistaken here. Evolution is already shown to be true. To get it widely ACCEPTED in the US requires us to loosen the old of religion on our country. I don’t remember saying that getting rid of religion will promote a harmonious society (though it will), but what I meant was that if we create a fairer and more just society, religion will go away on its own. But we should do that not merely to get rid of creationism, which is one of the lesser evils of religion, but to get rid of the larger evils (oppression of women and gays and so on).
Well put JAC.
I fear everyday that we live in Afghanistan, not USA.
Ahhh, the horrors of religion.
CW
Dear Mr. Craig Gosling,
Who was it who said:
“If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.
It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky.”
I’ll give you a hint, his initials are A.E.
You do realize that would eliminate about 99% of the bible right?
Shirley, more than 1% of the Bible must consist of prepositions and pronouns and articles? And conjunctions — mustn’t forget those!
See? Way more than 1%!
b&
Eliminating 99% of the bible sounds very good to me. Then we work on the other 1%.
There is no truth to the rumour that the Bible was actually written by J.K. Rowling.
If you’ve seen The World’s End, you’ll know it was by Alexandre Dumas. 😉
/@
Of course not.
If she wrote it, it’d be entertaining.
Dr. Coyne: welcome to the world of non-first rank universities. That is where many of us teach, every day.
When I attended Purdue University, we fondly referred to Ball State as Testicle Tech. No one I grew up with ever aspired to attend BS.
The ultimate questions of “god or no god” do not come from biologists. They will never come from biologists. The biologist sees and knows only the system on one spec of dust in the whole. Physicists are the proper examiners of the idea of God. Were he to exist, he would have shown himself, in the creation of the universe, of being vastly more interested in the non-living than the living.
I find myself as equally baffled by the question of how a sentient being could exist outside of space-time as I am by how a big bang could occur prior to it creating time.
If one cannot answer what time is, one can not definitively know much of anything about the origin of the Universe. They can guess, but the major definition underlying all phenomena still exists as undefined – why and what is time?
As it happens, cosmology has progressed.
You can choose to have inflation happening before what you call big bang. (Which can be the last scattering horizon as far as we can observe today, or the first spacetime with particles and a well defined temperature, or something else, depending which cosmologist you are listening to.)
Or you can choose to discuss what happened before inflation, in which case it is unclear if there was something you can call a big bang. (Some cosmologists have ways to obviate the problem of a past-time-incomplete inflation.)
Which of course is unhelpful to pin down what time is. The two major alternatives is that it always existed independent of space or that it is part of an emergent block universe. These two alternatives admit entirely different solutions to how the process leading up to our universe worked further back.
I feel sorry for the type of religious thinking on display here and am glad I no longer share it.
I wonder if Wolfe ever knew how to argue effectively. I suspect he once did, since he got as far as he did in academia but this ability seems to have withered so much from lack of use, it can be measured in planck lengths. To wit he says:
Well that’s a big accusation! Who are these mysterious, “small but vocal group of cynical atheists”?
He continues:
Again, reference please? And isn’t questioning the validity of Hedin to preach ID in a science class a reasonable way of “dealing with the challenges presented by atypical researchers”? I mean the challenge is passing off bogus science in a science class and violating the First Amendment at the same time. It would seem a way to do that would be to contact BSU then escalate to the FFRF so….
Love the tired old references to 1940s Social Darwinism & eugenics. I wonder if Wolfe also tells philosophy professors that they instead should focus on how wrong it was that the Nazi’s twisted Nietzsche’s Übermensch?
Overconfidence of scientists….bahahahaha!
Finally, the only thing that made me shudder more than normally in the student’s letter (once I got passed the realization that this was a person receiving higher education yet full of bad, bad ideas) was the part about how the followers of Jesus must “take a stand”. Funny how theists are accused for proselytizing and fighting in a culture war when the bellicose language usually comes from the fanatically religious!
and the last sentence should say “atheists” not “theists” – I think my alpha privative’s puniness caused it to get erased when I was proof reading.
“cynical atheists respond with exaggerated accusations and generalized categorizations.”
The irony in this stement is astonishing.
“Rather than proselytize his atheism, professors such as Jerry Coyne should spend more time speaking out against the abuse of the theory of evolution, as occurred in the early 20th century when social Darwinism was used to justify European white supremacy, eugenics, and the extermination of Jews, gypsies and people with disabilities.”
Wolfe joins a long, sad list of anti-evolution folks trying to blame Nazism and the Holocaust on Darwin. In all of his speeches and writings Hitler does not point to Darwin or ‘evolution’ in the scientific sense to support any of his ideas. However, he refers over and over again to his religion to justify his policies, even accusing Jews of being atheists. Geez, Wolfe, project much?
I also insist Jerry Coyne should devote a large segment of his time to combating the flat earth theory.
I still don’t understand the controversy, and the lengthy segues into what you think about religion, as if it even matters.
Don’t tech religion in a science class. Don’t pretend intelligent design is a science. That’s it. They always sidestep these two simple pillars, by arguing about academic freedom, and how atheists want to snuff out theological conversations.
I’d love to see the demise of religion, but that has nothing to do with this case. Don’t teach woo in a science class — that’s IT!
“These are people who are intolerant of those who question aspects of accepted science paradigms.”
What? We’re intolerant of scientists now?
/@
I think the student who wrote in is just butt hurt about Jerry giving the finger to creationists as that seems to be the only “research” he did. Maybe he needs some Petroleum Jerry. 🙂
Dear me, Jerry, are you trying to get on the bandwagon or off the bandwagon?
I think you missed the irony that the saxaphone is made of brass but it’s a woodwind instrument, and, in this case, blown by a windbag.
It takes a lot of brass to go after the woodwinds! What’s next, Jerry, outing the oboes? Calling the bassoons buffoons? (which would be nearly accurate in Old German)
I think you need to piccolo your fights more carefully. There’s a 4/3 time for everything. You may need a rest and let your staff carry the tune.
OK, my brain is starting to hurt.
Need to Take Five?
Thank you!
I was beginning to feel like I was surrounded by a bunch of Phillips Sousastines!
The ideal solution would seem to be to leave matters of faith/superstition/speculation completely outside of science. There is a problem there, though. Much of the ‘proof’ of existing science depends on theories which, whether or not apparently borne out by empirical evidence, are still capable of being upset or modified. Leave those out?
By the same token, the subject of ID should not be touched upon either to support or deny. No scientist has proven that this is erroneous. It is all a matter of perception. The ‘natural laws’ that simply ‘are’, and the ‘spontaneous events’ provide major holes in the anti-ID arguments.
Even assuming a start from zero sub-particles to expansion to bigly banging, and without any ‘separate’ intelligence, the original bits must have had that intelligence as an inherent quality. Evolution/nature/natural selection all show intelligence, the bounds of which quite probably go beyond anything mere human brains can possibly envisage.
Ah. This must be a meaning of the word “intelligence” that I wasn’t previously aware of.
/@
It requires a very narrow and inaccurate definition of the word to exclude what may be observed daily.
By all means feel free to provide a generally accepted definition of intelligence that isn’t predicated on mental processes arising from organic brains or analogous man-made constructs.
/@
You need to read Jerry’s book, stat. ID has even less merit than Ptolemic Epicycles — it’s right down there with astrology, homeopathy, dowsing, and voodoo.
You’re right that ID has no place in science (outside of history of science or sociology or anthropology or abnormal psychology or the like, of course). But you couldn’t be more wornger when you claim that it hasn’t been disproven or that there’s signs of an active intelligence at work in the evolution of life on Earth.
b&
After all, epicycles are sort of a poor man’s Fourier analysis if taken purely instrumentally. The rest are … not even useful. (Fermi?)
J.B.S. Haldane famously stated his ‘suspicion’ that ‘the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.’ This may be restated that he thought he knew that the universe was unknowable to humans. And just how did he ‘know’ this?
Now here comes ‘colonialist’ with ‘Evolution/nature/natural selection all show intelligence, the bounds of which quite probably go beyond anything mere human brains can possibly envisage.’ Like the great biologist, you weasel a bit (‘quite probably go beyond. . .’), but arrive at the same paradox: you know that we can’t know what the universe is.
Please use your ‘mere human brain’ to supply an argument for this assertion.
I would say that avoiding definite statements about things one doesn’t know is not exactly ‘weasel a bit’ -because one also can’t know that we can’t know.
I see intelligence in the way the entire universe operates; what is it that you see divorced from that, without going into meaningless closed-circle terms?
“I see intelligence in the way the entire universe operates” — I think that tells us far more about the way your mind operates.
/@
And that response indicates that yours simply doesn’t. Talk about ‘blinded by science’!
Jerry’s roolz prohibit me from making the appropriate response.
/@
No, you don’t.
Unless you’re a proponent of Intelligent Falling…?
No?
Good. Didn’t think so.
b&
Actually, yes. Things don’t just fall. They get pushed. And they fall because of gravity. And gravity pulls them because …
Poe’s law strikes again….
I’m sorry, but either you’re trolling; you’re dumber than a sack of hammered mice; or you’ve got the communication skills of a sack of hammered mice.
Regardless, your ideas don’t deserve the dignity of serious engagement. Come back after you’ve finished a remedial elementary — as in for fifth graders — course in science.
No, I’m not exaggerating. My eight-year-old nephew knows more about science in general and gravity in particular than you’re demonstrating. And he can explain it all more coherently than your attempts so far, too.
b&
Whoa, Ben–lay off the ad homs there. It’s against the roolz!
Sorry, but colonialist would appear to be advocating in favor of Intelligent Falling. Is that not itself the utmost caricature of ignorant stupidity?
How is it an ad-hominem attack to describe as ignorant and stupid the serious advocation of an Onion spoof?
If we can’t clearly label that which is ignorant and idiotic, how are we to steer people away from ignorance and idiocy?
b&
It would be interesting to hear a statement on this from Ball State biology professor Kamal Islam.
Why? What are you implying?
I’m not sure what he is implying but Prof. Islam’s PhD thesis is “Evolutionary History and Speciation of the Genus Tragopan”.
Any statement is probably best made by a group and Ball State does have 25+ professors (at all levels) in biology.
I am presuming, based only on his name, that he is probably not a Christian. So, even if he were a raging creationist, he would not be down with the preaching Jesus stuff. If I am wrong, it would still be interesting to find that out.
Jesus was a chemist, after all he turned water into wine (John 2:7-10) didn’t he?
All Ball State University has to do is give him an honorary PHD, posthumously
– oops, sorry I forgot he isn’t dead,I guess he can pick it up on his second coming, –
anyway, it would give give him some legitimacy so he can be taught in a SCIENCE class.
Jesus was a chemist, after all he turned water into wine (John 2:7-10) didn’t he?
Or a magician.
‘Why Evolution Is True’ by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009
57-MINUTE VIDEO
1] 17:05 Giving the finger to creationists [most amusing]
2] Garett Cates’ letter:- “Jerry Coyne’s agenda“ [I have put JACs actual words on the harmonious society in bold below]
JAC @ 45:12:-
*JAC Displays Graph*
X = ABSOLUTE BELIEF IN GOD
Y = SUCCESSFUL SOCIETY INDEX
Showing Belief in God highly correlated with social dysfunction [From Paul, G. 2009. The chronic dependence of popular religiosity upon dysfunctional psychological conditions. Evol. Psychol. 7:389-441.]
JAC @ 46:55
Yeah, he only heard what he wanted to hear because he was butt hurt.
What Cates *heard*:-
I just wish that I could have achieved as much as you have Jerry in fighting Creationism, that I too could have accumulated so many of these particular kinds of enemies.
“BSU student says I’m motivated by Satan.”
Are you not?
Are you motivated by Earth’s moon being made of cheese?
“Does Coyne have an agenda?”
Of course he has and it’s a public one: advocating good science.
The closest thing to BSU The Netherlands have is De Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, originally orthodox reformed. December last year JP van Rossum successfully defended his thesis
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/39335/dissertation.pdf;jsessionid=F34A0A60972929096005464C34867A58?sequence=1
At the faculty of philosophy, not biology.
JAC’s colleagues still didn’t hesitate:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/INGEZONDEN%20BRIEF%20GERDIEN.pdf
Alas for you in Dutch. The core is this:
“Doordat van Rossum natuurlijke selectie niet goed doorgrondt”
Van Rossum doesn’t understand natural selection well.
Hey, isn’t that exactly what JAC wants? Creationism and ID out of the faculty of natural sciences?
If you ask me JAC is too compliant. Academic freedom does not include pseudoscience.
I wish someone would seriously accuse me of being motivated by Satan. Thats so cool. Few things are funnier to me than the Satan concept. Im still offering online exorcisms for $19.95, BTW. Paypal.
“I likewise ridicule those who entertain the possibility that a large Jurassic reptile lives in Loch Ness, or a primate-like creature roams the woods of Oregon.”
Oregon, eh? I was wondering where that thing went.
You’re offering online exorcisms for ONLY $19.95?!? You must be motivated by Satan!
George Wolfe is ignorant, plain and simple. I’m not even going to blast that stupid comment about B. F. Skinner. This moron just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. For someone who holds a Ph.D. in higher education he doesn’t know shit about academic integrity.
What amazes me is the fact that the Muncie Star-Press makes no bones about it’s agenda. Publish the wackiest crap they receive as long as it supports the ignorant position of religion. Sadly, I’m sure it sells very well.
Reblogged this on The Little Tower and commented:
Ball State’s situation continues to astound me. I know not every field requires a dedication to proper science, but seeing a university raise its arms in defense of creationism is starting to depress me.
Wolfe:
Nazist Germany was, AFAIK, as vehemently against evolution as its leader himself. Ironically, something similar happened in Communist Russia.
Wolfe hasn’t kept upwith cosmology.
On one hand one could point out that we now know that inflation, a process, was responsible for initiating the local observable universe.
On the other hand one could point out that the question of “initiation” doesn’t make much sense since our universe is flat, or very nearly so. One remote comparison that one could make is that the initial stage was responsible for less than 10^-20 (or so) of the “unfolding” seen today. (Quite literary, since any initial curvature, a measure of energy, has decreased that much.)
To convert that to human measures, any extraneous “power” would be responsible for less than 10^-18 g of a human, or less than a millionth part of a cell. Maybe Wolfe’s “power” would be responsible for one cell’s cell membrane?
That doesn’t sound like much of anything to entertain, and bar other observations it certainly doesn’t pass muster as a likely existing factor in empiricism.
Cates:
The biologists here can correct me, but what I understand from biologist blogs is that macroevolution is most simply seen as a tool set.
If macroevolution goes, then our understanding of immune system changes (divergent populations of T cells) over periods of days and weeks goes. And despite Cates assertions of magic, I am certain that when the infections hits him he wants his non-magic medicine.
Typo: 10^-18 kg.
I think at this point in the synthesis of ideas, distinguishing between macro & micro evolution would be similar to distinguishing between macro and microgravity. (as if they were truly different things) Anymore, the terms are just another misused canard by the blinkered. Perhaps that’s what you implying by “tool set”?
I got it from a spin off group blog of McGill U dedicated to “(i) theoretical cognitive science and mathematical psychology, (ii) theory of evolutionary processes and complexity, and (iii) evolutionary game theory.”
So FWIW:
“When a biologist says “microevolution” or “macroevolution” they are actually signaling what kind of questions they are interested in asking, or what sort of tools they plan on using.”
Oh, and it was _B_ cells, my mistake:
“In the human immune system — when exposed to an antigen — B-cells produce antibodies. If it is your first exposure to the antigen then the antibodies produced will probably have very low binding affinity. However, after some exposure time, your B cells will start to produce antibodies with much higher affinities for the antigen and thus you will be able to better fight off the disease. The cool part, is that the antigen produced is tune via an evolutionary process!”
Ah, I see. Thanks!
I guess in this sense (which had not heard of before), the terms would be used for describing more generic change processes. Kind-of like using the word “evolution” as a stand-in for “adaptation”, I suppose. (rather than allele frequencies in organisms)
Up until now, I had only heard of these terms implying a manner of degree (of time & size), and had gotten picked up by cretinists, because all except the most blinkered had to admit that microorganisms evolve. So I’ve seen it used for doing a little bit of back-pedaling.
“Oh well… yeah, it happens in a petri dish, but not out in the savannah” kind of idea. Whereas I think the original terms were coined to describe processes observable in human lifespans vs. those that were not. I could be wrong, though…
Here is a reference on creationist accusations. I especially like the “iron law” of nazism protecting an assumed fixity of species.
So am now wondering if his lack of procreating was because of being monotesticular… or perhaps he was a completely different species altogether (?)
>>Even though Satan and those deceived by him may try, Jesus Christ cannot be removed from his own creation. It’s time for his followers to take a stand.
I don’t think he really believes what he said. If Jesus cannot be removed from his creation, then why the need to take a stand? Apparently the God of all creation needs a little help implementing his plan?
He’s been outsourcing a lot of the maintenance of His Creation….
You can’t blame him. He’s busy helping answer all those prayers for ponies!
And football games.
Ugh. At the institution where I did my M.S. degree, one of my colleagues eventually got a job, and is still, on the faculty at Ball State. We aren’t close, but next time I see him at a Meeting, I’ll have to get his view on this. I don’t suspect him of being friendly to creationism, btw.
Solidarity from England; maybe remind him that this BSU situation is almost unimaginable as happening here. Your cultural context isn’t where you live, but the whole world!