The Discovery Institute continues to threaten Ball State

October 2, 2013 • 12:34 pm

Well, this is the second Discovery Institute (DI) shenanigan of the day.

Last month I reported that, after Ball State University (BSU) dismantled Eric Hedin’s “science” course for teaching intelligent design and being a cover for Christian apologetics, the DI protested loudly, arguing that other courses also taught atheistic views, something presumably just as impermissible in a state university as pushing Christianity. As I noted, the DI wrote a strong letter to BSU president Jo Ann Gora, demanding that four other courses be investigated, either for containing significant amounts of “nonscientific material” or containing some atheist material, including a book edited by my agent John Brockman. As I wrote,

Now, however, the Discovery Institute (DI) has decided it will not go gentle into that good outcome. They have written President Gora a ten-page letter (link here), demanding an investigation of the Hedin affair as well as some structural changes in the university’s teaching. The letter is signed by John West, vice-president of the DI, as well as by  Joshua Youngkin, DI Program Officer in Public Policy and Law, and Donald McLaughlin, described as a “Ball State University Alumnus and Resident of Indiana Regional Representative Discovery Institute” (whatever that means).

But there have been three developments since the DI sent that letter.

First, as reported by the Ball State Daily News (the student newspaper), Ball State is investigating all its honors courses, including the four singled out in the DI letter:

All honors courses will be reviewed for appropriateness of teaching style, teachers’ qualifications and course materials, said a university spokesperson.

Joan Todd, executive director of public relations, said the reviews will occur before the semester the course is taught, and courses for Spring Semester 2014 are already under review. Four faculty subcommittees will conduct the reviews in distinct areas: social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and colloquia.

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design organization, sent a letter to Ball State officials in mid-September asking for a review of four classes, and the university will be looking at the four in addition to next semester’s courses.

. . . The institute said the class HON 390, “Dangerous Ideas,” by English associate professor Paul Ranieri promoted anti-theistic ideas through the main text of the class, “What is your Dangerous Idea?”

Hedin’s qualifications as an astronomy professor to discuss religious ideas were also examined, so the institute brought up three professors it believes teach areas outside of their field of study. They include English assistant professor Brent Blackwell’s HON 296: “‘Old’ and ‘New’” Science,”associate biology professor Ann Blakey’s HON 297: “The SustainABLES: Air, Biodiversity, Land, Energy, & the Seas [Water]” and assistant biology professor James Olesen’s 298: “The Biology of Life.”

This certainly looks as if BSU has capitulated to the Discovery Institute’s demands, and hidden its investigation of those four courses within a general investigation of all Honors courses, some of which certainly don’t merit that investigation. Even the “Dangerous Ideas” book, which I know well, can hardly constitute Christian proselytizing, for it contains a number of disparate articles about all kinds of stuff, and is part of a course designed to examine various “dangerous” views.  Yes, some of those include atheism, but I highly doubt that Dr. Ranieri was proselytizing for atheism in the same way that Hedin was proselytizing for Jesus. After all, Hedin’s syllabus consisted largely of books about how the universe gives evidence for God, and he pushed that view in the classroom.

Second, an article by Seth Slabaugh in the Muncie Star-Press reports President Gora’s response to the DI’s letter, which includes this:

You can be assured that the syllabi and curricula of all of the courses you singled out, as well as those of other courses offered by the Honors College and elsewhere at the university, are reviewed and updated on a regular basis,” BSU President Jo Ann Gora wrote in a letter on Monday to The Discovery Institute.

“Some were undergoing this process before we received the inquiry regarding Honors 296, and others are being reviewed and updated at the present time,” the letter read. “Our intent is to ensure that their content and pedagogy reflect the highest academic standards.”

But then Gora added this, as Slabaugh reports:

But nothing submitted by the institute “persuades us we should change our position” on intelligent design, Gora wrote in this week’s letter.

Well, that ticked off the DI, and the Star-Press reports that now they’re threating BSU, presumably with a lawsuit:

The Discovery Institute is not satisfied with Gora’s response and continues to threaten to “seek another remedy.”

“We are seriously concerned about whether the subcommittees being established will apply the same standards fairly and equally to all faculty,” West told The Star Press via email on Tuesday. “In particular, we will be looking at the make-up of the various committees to see if they are as ideologically one-sided as the ad hoc committee appointed to investigate Eric Hedin.”

He accused Ball State of continuing to “stonewall by refusing to answer basic questions that have been raised about its potential violations of the law, the federal and Indiana constitutions, and its own guarantees of academic freedom and due process.”

West said, “We gave BSU an opportunity to clarify what it is doing, and to show that it is applying its policies in a fair and legal manner. Because BSU has refused to clarify what it is doing or answer our questions, we will be forced to seek another remedy.”

I’m not too worried about all this, as the DI has always been like a toothless dog that barks incessantly.  And they surely don’t want another humiliating defeat like the one they suffered in Dover. But if they want to adjudicate the First Amendment on the college level, bring it on! I’d welcome that, because a public university is still a government institution, and in neither case can you legally proselytize religion in the U.S.

h/t: Diana

Canadian journalist snarls at atheists

October 2, 2013 • 9:52 am

Michael Enright, a “journalist” who broadcasts at CBC’s Radio One, has joined the chorus of atheist bashers in his broadcast last Sunday, “Could atheists please stop complaining?,” transcribed on the site (the audio is also available there; note that the URL uses the word “whining” instead of “complaining”). Although raised as a Catholic, and having attended a seminary for one year, Enright did describe his church in 1997 as “the greatest criminal organization outside the mafia”. That makes his most recent diatribe all the more mysterious, though I’ve often found that secularists who vigorously defend religion often were (like Enright) Catholic altar boys or the offspring of preachers.

The piece is more strident than anything that ever came out of the mouth of Richard Dawkins, but of course atheist-bashing, whether from believers or nonbelievers, doesn’t count as stridency.  Enright’s point is that atheists should stop whining about being discriminated against. They’re also smug and have no sense of humor:

If the atheists of the world could ever organize themselves into a non-religious church, their first Pope would undoubtedly be Richard Dawkins.

Professor Dawkins turns out homilies against religion the way the guy in Rome publishes encyclicals. He is currently on a book tour with his latest, which is very much part memoir.

His arguments are as immutable as Church doctrine; religion is bad, there is no God and if there was He would be a monster, religion retards the steady, unquestioned march of scientific achievement.

Along with Professor Dawkins this book season, we are treated to The God Argument, by the British philosopher A.C. Grayling.

Professor Grayling’s argument in The God Argument, is a “landmark book in the ongoing debate about atheism” according to his publisher.

. . . The two professors are pushing humanism, compassion and sympathy as antidotes to, I suppose, the anti-human, unsympathetic and unforgiving dogma of organized religion.

I doubt that Enright has even read Grayling’s book, which is about as civil and mild-mannered as one could wish. But, since Enright compared the Catholic Church to the mafia, why is he so exercised about vociferous atheism? It’s because we (apparently unlike the faithful) are smug and whiny:

I have been lucky enough to have interviewed the two most famous atheists in the world, Professor Dawkins himself and the late Christopher Hitchens.

And while there was little difference in their arguments, there was one thing that did differentiate them; Christopher had a sense of humour; Dawkins, not so much.

Therein lies the problem I have with atheism.

It’s not that atheists don’t believe in God. That’s fine. It’s not against the law. Atheism is a coherent system of beliefs arrived at, I am sure, after some very serious and sober consideration.

Atheists are not being prosecuted or silenced. They are lovingly tended by media interviewers, me included, and their nuanced arguments are politely acknowledged.

The problem to me is that they won’t shut up about it.

The public, endless public profession of atheism to me reflects a whiny, whinging self-pitying narcissism.

Well, yes, some atheists do complain about discrimination, and really, they are more discriminated against than religious people. Traveling in the southern U.S., or reading some of the comments on this site, you often hear atheists saying they’re afraid to “come out” for fear of discrimination by their co-workers, family, or friends.  You don’t hear Christians saying stuff like that. But, nevertheless, we’re beginning to hear the religious whine, too—and not for any good reason. Nobody whines louder than people like Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic league, who’s always banging on about discrimination against Catholics.  Well, at least the U.S. has had a Catholic president. We’ll never see an atheist in the Oval Office—not in my lifetime.

Religious kvetching (and Enright’s essay) are simply signs that people are paying attention to atheist arguments—which they can’t answer. And as for atheists lacking humor, when’s the last time you heard William Lane Craig make you LOL.  While Richard is not as publicly “warm” as some other folks, he does have a sense of humor (you can see it in The God Delusion, for instance) and nobody has ever accused Grayling, Dennett, or Pinker of lacking levity. This is simply an ad hominem tactic. Who cares if someone makes a funny when they’re fighting serious problems.  I don’t recall Martin Luther King being a public wit.

And here comes the inevitable accusation:
In  the last ten years or so, atheism has taken on some of the elements of fundamentalist Christianity.
 as well as the call that we should STFU:

Atheism and religion can co-exist, they always have. In fact, atheism has an important value set which believers would be well-advised to listen to and perhaps even adopt.

It’s just that instead of shouting their assertions and beliefs in a booming voice, they could maybe whisper.

As though they were in a library. Or a church.

Yes, and racism and calls for equality have always co-existed. That doesn’t mean that they both offer valuable insights.  And no, we’re not going to whisper. Do Republicans or Democrats whisper about their beliefs? Climate denialists? Christians and Muslims? Why on earth should we, unique among everyone with strong feelings, mute our tone? This is just part of the unwarranted privileging of religion: believers get to shout their delusions from the rooftops, but journalists fault us for simply speaking out.

Oh, my Canadian friends and readers: why do you harbor such a snake in your bosom?

When the boat comes in…

October 2, 2013 • 6:26 am

by Matthew Cobb

This lovely photo popped up in my Tw*tter feed with the caption “Cats waiting for the fishermen to return, unknown date”.

BVixsa9IUAA2Rbz.jpg-large

There are loads of copies of this on the internet, virtually all of them on Tumblr where it has been reposted, none of them with any credit that I can see. If anyone knows the name of the photographer, or the date and location it was taken, let us know and we will give due credit.

Egnorance of free will

October 2, 2013 • 5:34 am

It wasn’t I who used the term “Egnorance” to refer to the lucubrations of Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and an ardent proponent of intelligent design who regularly contributes to the Discovery Institute’s shriveled organ, “Evolution News and Views.” Egnor often goes after me on that site (I’m proud to say that my opinion of him is prominently displayed on his Wikipedia page), but I don’t pay him much attention. The DI has nothing more to do than attack atheists, evolutionary biologists, and tout its Jesus-soaked books; and I don’t feel like giving them hits.

But Egnor’s latest column, “Jerry Coyne endorses free will (inadvertently as you might expect),” has a fundamental error of comprehension that’s worth pointing out.

Now of course I don’t endorse free will, at least of the libertarian or dualistic type, so why does Egnor accuse me of this? Because I argue that humans can counteract the tendencies built into them (that’s a metaphor!) by evolution. If you think about it for a second, which Egnor apparently hasn’t, you’ll see that this kind of “counteracting” is no argument for dualism.

Egnor’s claim comes from a piece I recently wrote defending Dawkins against the accusations of Mary Midgley and Andrew Brown that the metaphor of “the selfish gene” has been deeply misleading.  In fact, I said nothing in my piece about our inability to countermand genetically-based behaviors, so Egnor is reduced to arguing that because I endorse Dawkins, I also endorse his views on this issue. Here’s what Dawkins says in The Selfish Gene, and is quoted by Egnor:

We can even discuss ways of cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world…. We have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

In fact I do agree with those views. And hence Egnor’s beef:

If we lumbering robot survival machines are to upset the design of our genes, we cannot be deterministic survival machines. As Midgely cogently observes, only free will — in fact, very strong libertarian free will — could permit us liberation from our selfish genes.

Coyne defends Dawkins’s theory of selfish genes. If Coyne believes, as Dawkins does, that we can upset the design of our selfish genes and practice genuine generosity and altruism, then Coyne presupposes strong free will — an idea he has repeatedly rejected up until now.

What nonsense! Egnor doesn’t understand determinism.

Although some genetically-based behaviors are very hard to overcome by volition (breathing and urinating are two), others are easier. Every time someone adopts a child, or uses birth control, he or she is deliberately overcoming genetic propensities. Masturbation also obviates our genetic drive to reproduce, and you can think of a million other ways that we overcome, on a daily basis, what evolution instilled in our ancestors.

Well, Engor might say, that just shows that we have free will: that we can make deliberate choices that go against what supposedly evolved (he doesn’t accept evolution.) And presumably that free will was a gift of God.

But Egnor’s argument for free will is flatly wrong.  For one thing, “choice” can be apparent choice, and determinists like me would argue that donning a condom is dictated by your neurons, which have previously absorbed the lesson that if you don’t do so, you could have an unwanted child.

Clearly, environmental intervention, like the thoughts that you derive from learning and observation, can change your brain.  We had to learn that ejaculation was connected with reproduction, something that kids learn every generation, and once we did we could go to the drugstore and counteract our evolutionary drive to reproduce.

But Egnor certainly doesn’t accept determinism, and would argue that those “choices” reflect libertarian free will. In that case, we can show that the use of chemicals, which certainly have nothing to do with such free will, can also overcome the tyranny of those selfish replicators.  You can take drugs that completely eliminate your desire to reproduce. You can take drugs that eliminate your desire to eat. You can take drugs that make you agitated or placid. All manner of drugs can change behaviors that reflect the ancient actions of natural selection, and every one of these drugs acts by changing something in your brain. As a neurosurgeon, Egnor should know this. But he’s blinkered by his faith.

Finally, diseases like depression or schizophrenia, which often strike in late teens or early twenties, can lead you to the ultimate non-evolutionary act: suicide.

Genetics is not destiny, and what was built into us by selection can be dismantled by rationality—or disease. What’s so hard about realizing that?

So many critics of incompatibilism—the view that free will is incompatible with determinism—simply don’t understand what determinism entails. And the most common misunderstanding—the one committed by Egnor—is to suppose that, under determinism, the environment cannot play a huge role in our “choices”, as it supposedly cannot affect the structure of our brain. But it can.

“If I Fell”

October 2, 2013 • 4:03 am

This beautiful ballad—surprisingly, a Lennon composition—was released as a single in 1964 and then put on the A Hard Day’s Night album a month later. It’s one of the best early Beatles songs, and the album itself  is underrated. Have a look at its tracks:

Side one
No. Title Lead vocals Length
1. “A Hard Day’s Night“ Lennon and McCartney 2:34
2. “I Should Have Known Better“ Lennon 2:43
3. “If I Fell“ Lennon and McCartney 2:19
4. “I’m Happy Just to Dance with You“ Harrison 1:56
5. “And I Love Her“ McCartney 2:30
6. “Tell Me Why“ Lennon with McCartney 2:09
7. “Can’t Buy Me Love“ McCartney 2:12
Side two
No. Title Lead vocals Length
1. “Any Time at All“ Lennon 2:11
2. “I’ll Cry Instead“ Lennon 1:46
3. “Things We Said Today“ McCartney 2:35
4. “When I Get Home“ Lennon 2:17
5. “You Can’t Do That“ Lennon 2:35
6. “I’ll Be Back“ Lennon with McCartney 2:24

My other favorites on that album are “Tell Me Why,” “Any Time at All,” and the haunting “I’ll Be Back,” which I mistakenly left off my list of songs to be posted (listen to it here; as with “If I Fell,” it has great harmony). We have five more to go.

“If I Fell” is ranked #26 on Rolling Stone‘s list of the 100 greatest Beatles songs, and that’s about where it belongs.

This is a rare version recorded in the BBC studios on July 14, 1964.

Some notes from Rolling Stone:

“If I Fell” was Lennon’s first attempt to write a slow, pretty number for a Beatles record. “People forget that John wrote some nice ballads,” McCartney said. “People tend to think of him as an acerbic wit and aggressive and abrasive, but he did have a very warm side to him, really, which he didn’t like to show too much in case he got rejected.”

Lennon said the lyrics — in which he begs a new lover for tenderness after being wounded by the last girl — were “semiautobiographical, but not consciously.” On the surface, they had little to do with his life: He had been with his wife, Cynthia, for years, and their son, Julian, was almost a year old.

And the album version, with wonderful harmony between Lennon and McCartney. I love to sing the harmony part (which is pretty easy) when I’m alone. Note that McCartney’s voice famously breaks on the word “vain”.

Wikipedia gives details about the melody:

The song is notable for its unusual structure, which includes an unrepeated introductory section sung by Lennon, followed by sequential verse sections, each having a slightly expanded form, but with no obvious chorus or bridge section. The demo version (just John on acoustic guitar) from early 1964, does include the introduction, as well as an alternate ending. The remainder of the song features a two-part harmony, sung by Lennon and McCartney together into a single microphone at their suggestion, with Lennon singing the lower harmony while McCartney sings the higher one. It also features intricate chord changes. The key changes from D flat major to D major between the introduction (a series of descending barre chords) and the main song, which uses mainly open chords, including an unusual D ninth.

And a bit more from Rolling Stone:

. . . musically, it was one of Lennon’s cleverest songs to date: The harmonic tricks of its strummy, offbeat opening were miles beyond what other bands were doing at the time, and it was “dripping with chords,” as McCartney said. It also showcased some of the Beatles’ finest singing. Lennon and McCartney shared a single microphone for their Everly Brothers-like close harmonies.

“[‘If I Fell’] was the precursor to ‘In My Life,'” Lennon pointed out later. “It has the same chord sequences: D and B minor and E minor, those kind of things. It shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads, silly love songs, way back when.”

Lennon was prone to denigrating his early songs (and McCartney’s); there is no way this is a “silly love song.”

Happy birthday, Kink!

October 1, 2013 • 2:35 pm

Reader “Doc Bill” has sent me a paean to his beloved cat Kink, who turns seven today. (I think of Kink, named for his crooked tail, as one of the three most popular cats on this website, along with Baihu and Merlyn.) Here are Doc Bill’s felicitations, accompanied by photos of Kink as a kitte—his first day at home!—and at present.

October 1 is Kink’s official birthday.  He’s seven!  SEVEN!  I can’t believe it but I’ve had seven wonderful years with this marvelous animal.

We’ve had six cats:  Natasha, Boris, Smokey, Nobbs, Sandy and Kink.  Each cat had a distinct personality.  Natasha was the “mean” cat unless she liked you.  Boris was a big, orange friend to all.  Smokey was the waif we rescued.  Nobbs was, well, Nobbs and ran away from home to live on the streets.  Sandy will live forever and is pushing 21 years.

And then there’s Kink.  Kink who understands speech.  Kink who can look you in the eye and you see intelligence in there.  Kink who is playful and loving and greets me at the door when I come home from work.  Kink who understands the phrase “bedtime for Bonzo” and trots to the bedroom to snuggle under the covers.  Kink who can sense my moods and sit on my lap when I’m looking for a cat to sit on my lap.  Kink who will come when I call him outside, let me pick him up instead of running away, wait patiently for bacon he knows is coming on Saturday morning.

Kink is an extraordinary feline, closer to human than cat, to whom I have bonded over these seven years.  I never had a cat like Kink and I cherish every day with him.  Kink will look me in the eyes and I feel love.

Happy Birthday, Kink, and many, many more.

Then:

Baby kink

Now:

Proud Kink