Ball State University hires another creationist

June 24, 2013 • 2:28 pm

Ball State University seems intent on embarrassing itself.  The latest news, provided by an reader who likes real science, is that BSU has hired yet another Discovery Institute (DI) intelligent-design creationist to teach astronomy classes.

Check out the fall 2013 course offerings in Astronomy at Ball State. There you’ll find two courses:

Screen shot 2013-06-24 at 2.37.04 PMand

Screen shot 2013-06-24 at 2.43.58 PM

Yep, you’re right–that’s Guillermo Gonzalez, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow and currently an associate professor of Physics at Grove City College.  According to Wikipedia, he’s also “a fellow with the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which also promotes intelligent design.” (It’s not clear to me whether Gonzalez will just be visiting and teaching at BSU or is a permanent hire.)

You may know about the man for several reasons, one of which is his co-authorship of the notorious book The Privileged Planet, described below. Although I haven’t read the book, I have seen the video on which it’s based, and it gives a religiously slanted view of cosmology. Its message: Earth was designed by God an Intelligent Designer as a great place from which to find out more about the universe.

Here’s a bit more about his background, again from Wikipedia:

Gonzalez was a regular contributor to Facts for Faith magazine produced by Reasons To Believe, an old earth creationist group.In addition to his work for the Discovery Institute and International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, he is a researcher for the Biologic Institute, which is funded by the institute for research into intelligent design.

In 2004 he published The Privileged Planet and its accompanying video, which takes the arguments of the Rare Earth hypothesis and combines them with arguments that the Earth is in prime location for observing the universe. He then proposes that the Earth was intelligently designed. William H. Jefferys, a Professor of Astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin, reviewed the book writing “the little that is new in this book isn’t interesting, and what is old is just old-hat creationism in a new, modern-looking astronomical costume.” Co-author Jay Richards responds to such criticism with the following statement: “It has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. We are talking about the things that you need to produce a habitable planet, which is a prerequisite for life. It doesn’t tell you anything about how life got here.” A documentary based on the book was produced by the Discovery Institute.

Gonzalez is also notorious for having been denied tenure at Iowa State University, which led the Discovery Institute to cast him as a martyr fired for his belief in ID.  The University has denied that, and was supported by the Chronicle of Higher Education. From Wikipedia again:

The University has issued an FAQ concerning the situation saying that “The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor.” The denial of tenure for Gonzalez resulted in one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns with the Institute encouraging its followers to call and email Geoffroy and urge him to reverse the decision.

The Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute’s claims of discrimination “At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination … But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez’s case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise.” The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.

That’s not a strong case for tenure. But even if Gonzalez had been denied tenure not for lack of good scholarship but because of his work on ID, I would not consider that a tenure-able accomplishment. Such  work would not have been publishable in decent scientific journals, for ID is, after all, a religously based theory with no scientific support.

Gonzalez now has an untenured position at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, where he heads an astronomy program.

Now I’m not claiming that Gonzalez is going to teach intelligent design, or proselytize for religion in Ball State classrooms, but really, is this the best BSU can do when hiring astronomy professors, even on a temporary basis? Is there some unholy connection between BSU and the Discovery Institute, or is the Department of Astronomy just sympathetic to intelligent design?

Regardless, this is a very unwise move for Ball State, particularly when one of its other astronomy professors, Eric Hedin, is under investigation for teaching ID in an astronomy class. If the University wants to retain any scientific credibility, they should start hiring scientists who will teach real science and not religious apologetics.

Should we be respectful towards religious ignoramuses?

June 24, 2013 • 10:40 am

A European professor just sent me an email that consisted solely of this (so much for civility!):

Calling someone an ignorant fool seems to be counterproductive, particularly if the goal is to build a concensus [sic] against the real enemy – militant religious fundamentalism.

The professor was clearly referring to my piece, “Rabbi Sacks is an ignorant fool,” in which Sacks described how morality could never derive from secular reason, why New Atheists were not “serious enough” (i.e., we don’t fully realize how deep is the spiritual void into which we’ve leapt, and that therefore we should be much more dolorous), and how only “fundamentalist” religions are bad.

I criticized these arguments, especially the oft-seen assertion that morality must derive from God, and an atheistic world would therefore be a barbarous one. That, and the other two claims, are simply ignorant. Rabbi Sacks’ pronouncements on morality are absolutely refuted by the existence of moral atheists, as well as largely atheistic countries that remain civil.

I adamantly deny that calling someone an “ignorant fool” is counterproductive, particularly if the fool is a religious one and our goal is to disenfranchise the unwarranted authority of religion.

True, such names surely won’t convert Rabbi Sacks and his acolytes to my point of view. But this type of invective has a different audience: those on the fence. These fence-sitters include people wavering in their faith and—especially—children who haven’t yet been completely brainwashed.

One of the main goals of New Atheism is to buff away the veneer of respect that surrounds the word “faith.”  The statement that “He is a person of faith” was for many years seen as a great compliment.  But this is rapidly eroding, for faith is belief held either for bad reasons, in the absence of evidence altogether, or indeed, in the face of counterevidence. Faith is not a virtue, but a vice.  (That, by the way, is why science, which deems faith a vice, makes progress, while religion, which considers faith the greatest virtue, does not.)

So my answer to the good professor is this: all religions, and much of the world’s ills, are based on respect for faith.  How do we erode that respect without making fun of it, or without emphasizing as strongly as possible its inimical consequences?  We cannot get rid of faith while at the same time showing a phony respect to its adherents.

Rabbi Sacks belongs in Dara O Briain’s sack o’ fools, along with those who believe in homeopathy, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, Scientologists, astrologers, and spiritual healers. All of these ludicrous beliefs are based on faith.  Nobody has a particular problem in calling adherents to those beliefs “ignorant fools.” So why does religion get a pass?

Grayling’s new book: a short but laudatory review

June 24, 2013 • 9:09 am

I want to give two thumbs up to Anthony Grayling’s new book, The God Argument: the Case Against Religion and for Humanism, which was released this March but is already available in paperback and Kindle. (Note: I haven’t yet read his previous effort, The Good Book, which is apparently a humanist version of the Bible drawing from secular tradition.)

The Gode Argument comprises two parts: an initial attack on the idea of God and the validity of religious thought, and then a disquisition on humanism and how it can replace religion.

Many of us will be familiar with some of Grayling’s arguments in Part I. He spends time, for example, dispelling the telelological, cosmological, and ontologial arguments for God, as well as Pascal’s Wager. But there’s a lot of other good stuff, including his indictment of the harms of faith.  As a philosopher, his perspective here is refreshing and more erudite than that of many New Atheists, and I  learned a lot.  Grayling’s writing is lively, fluid, and clear, and I doubt that anyone could find it “strident” since it’s quite restrained and civil. Nevertheless, it’s forceful, and impossible to read without agreeing that the elimination of religion, and the public morality it seeks to enforce, is essential.

Part II is a trenchant answer to those who criticize New Atheists for tearing down religion but not offering a substitute. Here he gives the clearest definition of humanism I’ve seen, and shows that, based as it is on nonreligious human thoughts and feelings that most of us share, it could easy replace religion.

He first demolishes the ideas that purpose and morality could come from God, and then outlines the humanist response to questions of “whence our life’s purpose?”, “where do we find morality?”, “how do we deal with love and sex?”, and, the eternal philosophical question—one that’s been largely replaced by academic philosophy—”what is the good life?”.  Even if you’ve read the Stoics, Marcus Aurelius, and other classical philosophers on the last issue, you’ll benefit from Grayling’s clear and compelling exposition. His enumeration of the half-dozen constituents of the life well-lived is inspiring. As Jack Nicholson said in “As Good as It Gets” (albeit while trying to seduce a woman), it “makes me want to be a better man.”

The chapter on death, which strongly promotes euthanasia, is a bit depressing but also thoughtful. It didn’t make me face my fear of mortality with any less trepidation, but did lay out an airtight case for assisted suicide, showing that the only opposition to it comes from misguided religious tenets. Eric MacDonald would approve.

The second part of Grayling’s book is the answer to those who, like Alain de Botton or Rabbi Sacks, insist that New Atheism is a dismal failure because atheists don’t suggest replacements for the essential human needs that drive religion. Grayling, our most eloquent exponent of humanism, has done the work, and although he doesn’t float the untenable idea of atheist churches or sermons, he shows that humanism can easily plug the gaps that remain when we give up God.

Do read it.

godargumnetcover

So much for peaceful Buddhists

June 24, 2013 • 6:33 am

We always think of Buddhism as a peaceful religion, but of course that’s belied by the violence that once raged in Sri Lanka, and the lesser-known and continuing enmity between the Buddhists and Muslims of Myanmar (Burma).  In that country Buddhists outnumber Muslims by about 25 to 1, and Muslims are the most common victims of religious violence. Predictably, they’re also the ones who get imprisoned most often.

Here’s one example of the kind of religiously-based stupidity that even a Buddhist-majority government can perpetrate. According to the New York Times, a trivial “offense” to Buddhism can reap a stiff prison sentence:

A court in Myanmar has found two Muslim women guilty of setting off a recent outbreak of sectarian violence, one of them by bumping into a Buddhist novice monk. Myint Thein of the pro-government National Unity Party, who attended their trial, said Wednesday that the two women in the central township of Okkan were convicted of “insulting religion.” Both were sentenced to two years in prison with hard labor. A police officer in Okkan, who did not want to be identified because he is not authorized to speak to the news media, confirmed the sentences.

. . . The two women’s trial was related to an April 30 episode in Okkan that culminated with Buddhist mobs destroying shops and homes in several villages. Myint Thein said the court heard that one of the women bumped into the monk as he was collecting alms and the other grabbed the monk by his shoulders. It is considered inappropriate in Buddhism for women to have any physical contact with monks.

Even if the Muslim women did that on purpose, it doesn’t merit two years of hard labor. (I shudder to think what “hard labor” means in Burma.) And none of this would have happened had there not been religion.

h/t: Diane G

The world’s largest pet rodent

June 24, 2013 • 6:28 am

UPDATE: As Matthew notes in the first comment below, he wrote a longer post on the capybara this January, and I’ve simply forgotten (the video below is new, though). His post is very good, and you can find it here. My only excuse is that I easily forget things that I’ve written here, much less those written by others.

____________

In case you didn’t know, the world’s largest rodent is the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), a denizen of South America. They’re about 0.6 m (2 feet) tall at the shoulder when grown, and are semiaquatic herbivores that, according to Wikipedia, weigh between 35-66 kg (77-150 lb.). Visit the Capybara Page for more information.

The one in this video, named Gary, is the only pet capybara I’ve heard of, and lives in Texas.

Well, there’s one exception. When I took the Organization for Tropical Studies course in 1973, the course coordinator, the famous biologist Dan Janzen, was toting a small capybara around with him (his son was there, too). He called it “Tempesquintle,” apparently the Mayan name for the beast. It was, and still is, eten as a delicacy (I’m told that it tastes like chicken, LOL). I hope Dan’s pet didn’t end up in the stewpot.

Here’s its present range:

220px-Hydrochoerus_hydrochaeris_range

An amazingly cryptic gecko

June 23, 2013 • 1:07 pm

A reader called my attention to this lovely image by photographer Thomas Marent, who has taken some stunning wildlife photos you can see on his webpage (click on the big image to go inside; I especially like the reptiles).

I’ve taken a screenshot from his introductory page so you can see the image without the photographer’s name superimposed, but be aware that this is copyrighted by Mr. Marent and he’s kindly given permission for me to reproduce it here without fee (i.e., don’t repost it).

This is image 78 on the “reptiles” page. But do spend some time looking at his other shots; Marent is one of the best wildlife photographers I’ve seen.

Click to enlarge, and you should:

Screen shot 2013-06-23 at 10.42.55 AM
Photo: Thomas Marent

This is the Satanic Leaf-Tailed Gecko (Uroplatus phantasticus), an appropriate name—except for the “Satanic” part. Why is it satanic?

It’s endemic to Madagascar (of course; that’s where all the weird stuff lives), is nocturnal, and—like many animals on that island—threatened by deforestation.

The crypsis (camouflage) is amazing. As Wikipedia notes (link above):

 Some U. phantasticus geckos even have notches in their tails to further mimic a decaying leaf. This is also thought to be a form of sexual dimorphism, as the trait seems more common in the males of the species. In addition, U. phantasticushas an eyelash-like projection above each eye. During daylight hours, these adaptations help the gecko blend into its surroundings. At night it helps the gecko hunt for prey by providing camouflage.

Here’s a short clip (with inappropriate James-Bondian type music) showing a pet specimen. And there are a lot more images on this page.

Muncie Star-Press editorial supports teaching of intelligent design

June 23, 2013 • 10:26 am

I wouldn’t have believed this possible for a serious newspaper, but maybe I’m naive about the state of politics in Indiana, and of the need of a newspaper to cater to its readers.  What is palpably true, though, is that the Muncie Star-Press, in its latest editorial, “Our view: BSU prof deserves fair treatment”, has come out on the side of ignorance and anti-science.

Brief repriese: Muncie is the home of Ball State University, which is currently investigating Eric Hedin, a professor who taught a science course (one of only three available for Honors students) whose readings and curriculum were slanted toward the view that phenomena in the universe give indubitable evidence for the Christian god. I’ve documented this extensively; if you want to see the evidence, just search on this site for “Hedin”.

There is no doubt that this course was not a genuine science course, nor a course that, as it claimed, challenged students to think. There is no challenge in having an overwhelmingly Christian group of students have their views confirmed, for there were no readings presenting the other side—the side that there is no scientific evidence for divine intervention in the universe. There could, for example, have been readings from Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Steven Weinberg, and Lawrence Krauss, but instead the students got John Lennox C. S. Lewis, and other religious accommodationists.

Not by the farthest stretch of the imagination did Hedin present any “challenging” views. Indeed, in one class of 25 students, all were religious save one. What is perhaps most odious is the huge number of readings on intelligent design (ID): a discredited, religiously-based theory that Hedin apparently supports. By not presenting criticisms of ID, which are many and convincing, Hedin was in effect purveying lies to students in a public university. That appears to violate violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

So what does the local paper do? Publishes an editorial supporting Hedin and asserting, contrary to all evidence, that he was conducting a fair and balanced course.

Per the editorial’s title, of course Hedin deserves fair treatment. I am fully in favor of the university’s investigating the course fairly, looking at its aims and its syllabus, and seeing if the course was truly a science course that challenged the students to think, but also taught solid science.

And I don’t think “fair treatment” means that Hedin, if found remiss, should be fired. My view is that the course needs to be restructured to get rid of Christianity (if it’s to remain a required science course), or moved to philosophy or religion, with addition of balancing views.

But the editorial goes farther, and claims that Hedin’s course really did fulfill its aims:

The course description for “Boundaries of Science” hints at the possibility religion might be discussed:

“In this course, we will examine the nature of the physical and the living world with the goal of increasing our appreciation of the scope, wonder, and complexity of physical reality. We will also investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life. This course is designed to allow students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe and life and to give food for thought about deeper questions which remain central to human existence.”

We don’t think there’s a problem here, so long as students enrolled in the course know exactly what they’re getting into. In fact, a healthy discussion about science, especially the origin(s) of the universe, ought to include religion. After all, isn’t a college education supposed to challenge students to go beyond facts and look at theories, and their merits or fallacies? Isn’t higher education supposed to include an understanding of controversial, perhaps unproven, ideas?

Yeah, like astrology, homeopathy, and flat-earth “theory,” all of which are exactly as credible as ID.

HONR 296 – Inquiries in the Physical Sciences
Study of introductory principles within the physical sciences, emphasizing the relationships of the sciences to human concerns and society. Study of social and ethical consequences of scientific discoveries and their applications to critical issues confronting contemporary society. Open only to Honors College students.
Does this, or the description given by the newspaper, really tell the students “exactly what they’re getting into”?  I don’t think so. Where’s the mention of God, religion, or anything numinous that the paper says can be easily discerned from the course description?
And, importantly, there was no “healthy” discussion of science in that course, but one heavily weighted toward God.  If there were, for example, a healthy discussion of the origin of the universe, shouldn’t it also include works by Krauss, Carroll, Stenger, and Weinberg, all whom have made substantive contributions to the problem? Is it just a coincidence that none of those authors see a role for God in the process? Where, exactly, is the “challenge” to the students here? There is none: the readings all confirm their preconceptions that “God did it.”
And the Muncie Star-Press knows this, for their reporter has been covering the case, and Hedin’s textbooks and recommended readings are online.  This pretense that Hedin was “challenging” the students is arrant nonsense, and the newspaper knows it. It’s dishonest and infuriating.
The editorial continues:
A scientific understanding does not automatically preclude the existence of God. Although it might. It also might help develop or reinforce one’s belief in a higher being.
Well, maybe, but this is a science class, for which students get science credit, not a philosophy or religion class. God has no place in such a course, any more than in a chemistry class which touts God as having designed the molecules and moved the electrons, or a physics class in which the professor explains that nature’s laws must have come from God. Here the newspaper is pandering, trying to show its religious readers that science is compatible with God, and that Hedin was simply reinforcing that innocuous idea.
Perhaps the dumbest part of the editorial is this:
 Lest anyone think Hedin is a closet Christian in the classroom, one ought to take a look at the titles (or better yet, read) the publications he has helped author. Here’s a couple of them: “Combined Aharonov-Bohm and Zeeman spin-polarization effects in a double quantum dot ring,” and “Spin-polarized electron transport through nanoscale devices.” Sounds pretty scientific to us. Of course, what is published and what is taught can be wildly divergent.
Yes, Hedin’s science papers don’t mention God, because if they did they wouldn’t have been published! But the evidence is clear: what he published and what he taught—according to both his syllabus and student reports of his statements—were wildly divergent. Take a look at Hedin’s syllabus, for instance, brimming with Christian accommodationism and apologetics.
Or what about this statement from one of Hedin’s students, a nonbeliever:
The biggest was when I asked him why the Christian god is the answer to whatever science cannot explain. He said that it was not just his beliefs, it was a simple fact that it must be the Christian god. He then said, and this is a direct quote, “It’s not like it was some Hindu monkey god.”
Great Ceiling Cat! That sounds pretty much like closet Christianity to me! But of course the Muncie Star-Press, which knows this all very well, has seen fit to ignore it.  Hedin’s closet Christianity is a matter of public record.
The editorial ends with a call for fairness (and an explicit request that Hedin’s career not be damaged):

We hope Ball State and the rest of academia do not lose sight of this: Hedin’s reputation and possibly his career could be sullied, or upheld, by the findings of this investigation. The stakes are high for Ball State as well.

That’s why this investigation must be thorough, impartial and, we hope, as open to the public as legally allowed.

Truth, whether in scientific inquiry or investigations into professors, can be elusive, but it must be pursued nonetheless.

They should also not lose sight of the facts that 1. Hedin was pushing Christianity in a science class; 2. This was a violation of the First Amendment; 3. The brand of “science” Hedin was pushing is a discredited form of creationism; 4. No alternative viewpoints to the religious one were presented, either in class or the readings; and 5. In a course for science credit, students should not be taught creationism nor told that the Universe reflects the face of God. That is not science but theology.

The students of Ball State University were shortchanged by Hedin’s course, which is simply Christian scientific apologetics— natural theology.  And the citizens of Muncie, and the state of Indiana, are being shortchanged by a cowardly newspaper which, trying to pander to its constituency, implicitly endorses the teaching of creationism in its public-university science classes. This is an example of how a newspaper’s desire to be “fair and unbiased: has gone awry. There is no fairness in teaching woo and discredited science to students.

I close with this cartoon produced by reader “Pliny the In Between”, reflecting his take on HedinGate:

Untitled.001

This cartoon is infinitely more savvy than the misguided editorial of the Muncie Star-Press.