I was going to write a longer analysis of the Discovery Institute’s outraged response to yesterday’s decision by BSU president Jo Ann M. Gora to disallow the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, but why bother? They lost (i.e., science won), and despite their rumblings and threats, the issue is basically settled.
If you’re interested, you can go over to Evolution News and Views and read John G. West’s “Ball State president’s Orwellian attack on academic freedom” and come to grips with their “arguments,” such as they are. And since they brought up Orwell, here’s a nice example of doublespeak from West himself: “But teaching about the controversy over intelligent design is not the same thing as teaching ID as a scientific theory.”
The piece is supplemented with a threat:
If anyone thinks that Gora’s statement is the end of the Hedin matter, they are mistaken. This is just the beginning. BSU is a state university, and its blatant double standard on academic freedom raises fundamental questions that will need to be answered.
Well, it may not be the end of the IDers’ whining and mewling, but for all intents and purposes the case is closed. The rest is commentary.
Another article (author unidentified) on the same site says this:
In a blatant attack on academic freedom and the unfettered consideration of scientific viewpoints, the president of Ball State University (BSU) in Muncie, IN, has imposed a gag order on science faculty forbidding their discussion of the theory of intelligent design (ID) in science classrooms.
Gag order? I don’t think so. Gora said that ID could be discussed, but not as science and not as a view privileged over other views in philosophy and religion classes. Presumably the Discovery Institute would consider prohibitions against discussing homeopathy in med-school classes or flat-earth “theory” in geology classes as “blatant attacks on academic freedom and the unfettered consideration of scientific viewpoints.”
Finally, at the Muncie Star-Press, Seth Slabaugh has written what will probably be one of his last pieces on the controversy, “Intelligent design removed from BSU class.” Some of the readers’ comments at the end of the piece are dire. Here are a few:
//
From the Muncie Star-Press article:
>blockquote>John West, vice president of the Seattle-based intelligent-design think tank The Discovery Institute, called Gora’s statement “Orwellian in the extreme” and “a gag order on any member of the university’s science faculty who may happen to think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.”
I think this clearly demonstrates that the Discovery Institute isn’t really interested in teaching the controversy as they claim, but that they want ID to be taught as a scientific theory on par with, in this case, the Big Bang theory.
Argh, blockquote fail.
Subscribing
It’s sweet how they think they can teach ID as a controversy, they seem to be more open to acknowledging it’s not science. ID isn’t a controversial issue in science, it’s just wrong. It’s like teaching Ancient Astronaut theory in an ancient history class, these structures are too complex, therefore aliens.
Mr West does ask an interesting question: “If Gora really believes that intelligent design is religion… does her gag order apply equally to scientists on her campus who are opposed to intelligent design? For example, does her new speech code forbid scientists from attacking ID in science classes? After all, in her view, that would be tantamount to attacking religion, and therefore would be unconstitutional…”
He knows ID as science doesn’t work, so he wants it to be controversial, he knows if it is science it is open for debate (which they lost a long time ago), so now he wants ID to be a religion? I suspect he is more likely being facetious but we could be seeing the next step in the evolution of ID. If they are open to being religious (they are still looking for a serious martyr and desire persecution) they can get all sorts of benefits.
I think this is just one of their old tactics: if evolution has religious implications, then it is religious and shouldn’t be taught (or should be taught with other religious ideas like ID (which isn’t about religion, nudge, nudge, wink, wink)).
“For example, does her new speech code forbid scientists from attacking ID in science classes?”
IANA teacher, but I don’t think a science class even needs to mention ID unless a student brings it up. Creationism might get mentioned as part of the history of science, but ID has only existed for a few years and of course is totally useless, so,”I have no need for that hypothesis.”
The always claim any opposing characterization of ID is incorrect, and so the argument doesn’t apply. It means nothing and it certainly shouldn’t be taken to imply that they think ID isn’t science – rather, its a ‘liars for Jesus’ argument. Claim “we’re not saying that at all!” to your critics while you say that to church groups and local school officials.
I am frankly amazed that they have any credibility in the creationist community at all. Cutting and running from local groups when they get in trouble due to the DI’s help has become their standard MO.
Frustrated by the fact that main stream scientists have no choice but to reject ID on its face, they only recourse they have is to pretend ever harder that ID has some scientific merit.
West cannot even be bothered to read the letter without his persecution lens. Clearly ID is only worth discussing in his eyes if it can pretend to be controversial and have some real points against evolution. It reveals the whole plot of the ID supporters. ID exists only to discredit evolution, there is no other merit or goal to it. Anything that subverts this goal away might as well be a “gag order”.
The unidentified writer refers to the theory of intelligent design. Hooray… a theory!
Now what is it?
It’s a glorious theory filled to the brim with unicorns, sky-daddy’s, talking snakes, passive-aggressive zombies and magic apples ad libitum.
No cats though.
“No cats though.”
So much for being a glorious theory.
Aye, I guess I went a bit ovet the top there.
Why is Christianity so anti-feline? Aside from Daniel’s lion den, are they in the babble, er, bible anywhere?
In medieval Christianity (and perhaps earlier) cats were thought to be familiars of witches and other folks who pal around with demons. Some towns struck by the Black Plague in the Middle Ages took this idea too far and went around killing cats. Cats were about the only thing having an impact on rat populations, so this only made the plague problem worse.
Substituting superstition for real facts gets you dead.
I think a felid lies down with a lamb at one point.
Letter of Jeremiah EpJer.1:21 Upon their bodies and heads sit bats, swallows, and birds, and the cats also.
King James put that in the Apocrypha, so whether you accept that as “in the Bible” may be dependent on your denomination.
You forgot about that other fantastical creature, “Specified Complexity”, which is rigorously defined in ID science as: “complexity, with some sort of number thingie attached to it”.
Complexity appears nowhere in the Bible. Neither does specified.
It just seems to be beyond obviously clear when something like Gora’s letter is compared to the bleatings from the DI which “side” (science vs Religion/Dogma) is worthy of respect and consideration, and which is not. It really demonstrates just how much people are willing to overlook, or are just incapable of seeing, when their minds are infected with “faith.”
And I don’t mean the disparity in reason and evidence. I am talking about the dishonesty vs honesty, the carny tactics vs straight talk, the appeal to righteousness vs not doing so.
PZ was tearing into some clown the other day (Dr. David Shormann) so I waded into to a discussion over at Shormann’s website. One person commenting (who had the letters “sci” as part of his/her username) actually acknowledged flat out that he/she assumes the Bible is true and then “interprets” scientific evidence through that lens. These people just don’t get it and they probably never will.
Oy vey, or something like that.
I think you are absolutely right, at least about some cases. There is just some very simple, very fundamental thing that they just don’t get. Something like just because it comes from a perceived authority figure, or just because it engenders negative emotion in you for whatever reason, does not indicate anything about the accuracy of it.
“… it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess [hypothesis] or what his name is (beat) if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman
/@
Yes indeed. Feynman was one of the best. I think some of his writings and filmed lectures and interviews would be a good addition to any primary school critical thinking course. Or any level course.
There’s a few of his lectures on the tube.
Great to watch and tasty brainfood for thought.
At this time, the majority of the comments seem to be on the side of reason.
/@
Yes, yes there are much better things to write think about then the DI’s stupid responses.
I’m sure the DI’s threat at the end of West’s piece will manifest itself in the form of whining through various media. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start another petition filled with their haughty indignation and sense of entitlement. Hopefully, the press ignores them, but who knows.
At least there were some reasoned responses to Seth Slabaugh’s article. I’m saddened that Allen Lichtenberger uses the image of Augustus as his avatar; how dare he sully the image of my favourite emperor with his ignorant response. Augustus would have had him whacked for going against the rulings of his regime 😀
LOL first sentence fail:
….there are much better things to write *and*think about *than* the DI’s stupid responses.
I proof read this too. I really think I must have some brain issues.
Don’t worry. We all a few words form time to time.
Diana, do not fret over your little mistakes. A lot of us out in the website-o-sphere appreciate your commentary.
Ditto’ed. 🙂
Thanks, I feel so loved.
Anytime. 🙂
Awww thanks Larry!
“BSU is a state university, and its blatant double standard on academic freedom raises fundamental questions that will need to be answered.”
Well, it seems that the Discovery Institute is catering to a non-scientific audience (nothing new). I think the issue of academic freedom vs. academic competence was settled between scientists long ago (set aside P.Z. and the like).
ID is NOT science, and no matter how many people the DI get to think that it is won’t change that fact.
…
Isn’t it strange how you don’t really hear the creationists/ID crowd complain about any Orwellian attacks on academic freedom when it comes to trying to force intelligent design or “strengths and weaknesses” into public education via legislation or other political activity? (think Don McLeroy in TX)
I wonder why that is…
sub
John West would do far better to spend his time catching salmon.
This is the Money Quote that needs to be put on t-shirts, thrown at the Disco Tute and the Tooters at every opportunity, on every comment thread and in every discussion:
Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom – it is an issue of academic integrity.
You will note that Westie didn’t mention “academic integrity” once in his rant. That’s because he knows the jig is up if that observation takes hold. Of course, how many times do we have to chop up the Zombie of ID?
We’ll have to keep chopping at it until some creationist group comes up with a new term and attempts to sell it.
They are worms: Once per segment? How many segments have they got?
Unfortunately, I think it’s like the Hydra – for each head you cut off, two grow. Hercules’s technique, depending on the version, was either that his nephew cauterized the stumps with a burning brand or that Hercules himself dipped his sword in the Hydra’s blood and used that to poison the stumps. Quite how one applies this to ID I’m not sure.
I looked forward to the IDiots whining whingeing, and they deliciously didn’t disappoint.
I was more disappointed with the MS piece, as it had to end on the defending note of quoting the atrocious theological statement of NAS:
“According to the National Academy of Sciences, science and religion “should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other,” and “evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith.”
“Science can neither prove nor disprove religion,”the academy says.”
Accommodationist theology doesn’t seem to help to oust creationism from universities, as the current example shows. But it does do harm as misinforming the public and as a comfort blanket for equivocating journalism.
And, ceilings of cats! The quoted comments had someone defend religious with flat Earth and what not myths, so I went there for just 1 (one) comment. Famous last thoughts…
The biggest problem I had with the NAS statement is their use of the word “understanding”. Understanding implies an intellectual, reasoning process at work, which not the case. What creationists do is rationalize – they “know” how the world really is and adjust the evidence to give them that answer. NAS should use the word “view”, perhaps, or just say nothing at all.
What would appear even more egregious is that the NAS statement vulgarly misrepresents the position of the overwhelming majority of its membership who in polls has repeatedly shown to be unequivocally disinclined towards god(s)bothering.
Inconceivable that such August intellects, members of this most elite of reality-based organizations, would allow their leadership to issue such intellectually dishonest politically correct piffle. I just can’t imagine they voted on this item.
I had an organic chem class where we discussed homeopathy.
Okay, so it was the teacher explaining the “principles” that homeopathy supposedly used and why they were dog doo, but it was discussed.
I talk about homeopathy all the time as an example of something that HAS been tested and found ineffective, and as something that should NEVER have been tested because it goes against everything we know about pharmacology.
Well, it depends on when, I think. It would have been appropriate to specifically test it sometime in the past. Currently and in the recent past it has been tested in the sense that, as you stated,
The accumulated understanding derived from a myriad of tests from many different branches of science does seem adequate to make dismissing homeopathy a reasonable thing to do. But, I don’t necessarily have issues with testing something like this in order to demonstrate to doubters that it is bullshit. Even when that seems unlikely to change many minds.
Yes; but when (something like, Dr. C. has quoted the actual number) more than half of religious Americans say that if scientific evidence were shown to conflict with their religious assumptions, they’d hug Jebus even closer, then the jig is up and we’re wasting our time.
Our work is with the fence-sitters.
Remember that homeopathic “drugs” are actually preparations diluted to near non-existence, and are claimed to be MORE efficacious the farther you go. Your average 6 year old sees that this is nonsense. Try telling him or her that the Kool-Aid will get sweeter when you add more water.
Yes indeed. In modern times we know enough about reality thanks to scientific inquiry to know that homeopathy is, to a very high degree of probability, nonsense, even without specifically testing it.
In ancient times we did not. There are plenty of phenomenon that are counter intuitive, and there are plenty of cases where less of something is “better.” For example vaccines. A less virulent strain of some bad bug saves your life, a more virulent strain kills it.
Your average six year old would believe in homeopathy if it where raised to do so.
What is Orwellian is calling ID a theory and speaking of it as a scientific viewpoint.
They are scared shitless.
Evolution proved there was no Adam and Eve,thus no original sin for their Jesus to save them from.
Science proves their whole story a lie.
Be kind to them, their life now lacks purpose –
Simples 😉
Did anyone catch on Science Channel Wed night the ‘Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman’ episode entitled ‘Did God Create Evolution?’ Get your Intelligent Design fix with Michael Behe on the show! http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/the-theory-of-intelligent-design.htm http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/season-4-episodes8.htm I was really bothered by how they kept equating ‘evolution’ with ‘origin of life’ but that always seems to be screwed up by the popular media.
It appears this Behe character fails to understand how evolution really works with his irreducable complexity argument.
I think I’ll pass. I’m in such a good mood on this beautiful friday, no need to ruin that. 🙂
My irony meter popped a spring or two when I read Ms Massey’s comment re: heliocentrism. The analog is so straightforward I just can’t understand how anyone would get that backwards. Indeed, at first I thought she was posting on the side of reason. Then my head asplode.