A new recruit

| 46 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

The Discovery Institute is doing a fine job of raising the visibility of creationism and focusing the attention of their enemies. They say things like this:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it’s important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

And suddenly, scientists in disciplines other than biology perk up and realize that these clowns are coming to pester them next. The Privileged Planet debacle is a sign that the anti-evolutionists are eager to pollute national science institutions and all scientific disciplines with their garbage, and more and more scientists are going to be speaking out harshly against them. The utter vacuity of the creationist responses in Kansas is also a sign of their weakness; the DI has overreached itself, and blood is in the water.

The newest recruit is Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy Blog. Phil has always been ready to dismantle the abuse of his discipline by the media, but now he's alerted to the bad physics, astronomy, and cosmology of the Discovery Institute, and plans to spend more effort fighting the distortions of the creationists.

Young Earth creationists have let slip the dogmas of war. In the ensuing battles they will use a host of weapons, including misrepresenting facts, mining of quotes, belaboring outdated theories, and dancing around to avoid answering direct questions. Mark my words: their history is clear.

They may have fired the first shot, but we have plenty of ammo on our side as well. And we also have many, many scientists willing to accept this call to arms.

I’m one of them. Over the course of time, you’ll be seeing more rebuttals — no, debunking — of creationist claims here. I’ve had enough, and this threat is real. They want to turn our classrooms in a theocratically-controlled anti-science breeding ground, and I’m not going to sit by and watch it happen.

Every anti-science, anti-education bill in a legislature makes a state full of bitter foes, every national embarrassment creates a horde of angry scientists. I think the only thing we've lost in our war with the creationists so far is our complacency.

2 TrackBacks

John G. West of the Discovery Institute wants all you conservatives to know that the Debate Over Evolution Not Going Away, and that you need to join up with his side and question "Darwinism", because of all those intolerant nasty... Read More

The IDists love to quote me, because I am rather militant in my opposition to their lies. They are particularly fond of one particular quote* that they've even used in their fund-raising literature. They think it's damning; some of my... Read More

46 Comments

I’ve always wondered why the IDiotists and creationists did not go after other scientific fields. Took them long enough.

US scientists launch evolution fight-back

Bizarre as this seems to us in the UK, in the states, the teaching of one of science’s most robust and well-tested theories is a highly controversial matter.

This is on a news site, The Register, usually devoted to IT developments, not basic science.

Let’s not forget Archeologists they should be targeted as well.

7000 year old buildings which makes them older than creation …right?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 141, byte 277 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

It is beautiful seeing the DI trying to make the slow wake-up of science to the threat of the IDiots into a bad thing.

Gee, I thought that evolution was controversial in the science community, and that growing numbers of scientists were joining the ID movement. I guess not, rather it seems that science is appalled at anything so idiotic as the DI peddles.

Methinks the IDists have just kicked their wedge out from under the door and are trying to stuff it back in the wrong way round.

Is it through arrogance or sheer stupidity that they are launching a broadside against the whole scientific establishment? Both, probably.

And of course we all know that public acceptance of a particular set of ideas is what makes them true …

As I mentioned in another thread, IDist have never been concerned about winning people over through proving ID correct. It’s simply a popularity contest for them.

To paraphrase Slartibartfast, they’d “far rather be popular than right any day.”

Not that I likely have to mention it, but a perusal of

http://theocracywatch.org

might be in order. It is much more than just science.

I don’t know what this is about, but I’m assuming the facts of the case have been distorted:

For Immediate Release June 13, 2005 Press Contact: Rob Crowther

(206) 292-0401 x107

[Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom

SEATTLE – An effort by three professors at Ohio State University (OSU) to publicly damage the academic future of a graduate student, Bryan Leonard, because of his support for teaching about the controversy over evolution is “an attack on academic freedom and a violation of professional ethics,” said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman.

“Bryan Leonard has not even had a chance to defend his dissertation through the university process and they have gone to the press to try to discredit him in public,” said Chapman.

“It seems to me that the graduate student’s real crime in this group’s eyes is that he represents the science teaching policy recently adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education,” added Chapman. “Having failed to win their way with the state board, they are taking it out on an unusually promising graduate student who was consulted by the board in its deliberations. The professors apparently have not even read the dissertation they are denouncing.”

According to an article in the June 9, Columbus Dispatch, OSU professors Steve Rissing, Brian McEnnis, and Jeffrey McKee are seeking to discredit the dissertation research of Mr. Leonard, an OSU graduate student (and current high school biology teacher). Mr. Leonard’s dissertation analyzes how teaching students “the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution” impacts student beliefs about evolution.

“Last year Prof. Rissing tried unsuccessfully to kill the lesson plan that Mr. Leonard helped to draft, but he was rebuffed by the Ohio Board of Education,” said Chapman. “Now it appears he and his colleagues are trying to strangle Mr. Leonard’s academic future.”

According to the Dispatch, the professors admit that they haven’t read Leonard’s dissertation. But that hasn’t stopped them from asserting that Leonard’s research is flawed because it “may have involved unethical human-subject experimentation.” But the supposed unethical problem with human subjects is nothing more than teaching high school students the scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory. That kind of teaching is an approach endorsed by Ohio’s official science standards and also the conference report appended to the federal No Child Left Behind Act.”

“The complaining professors are simply defining as ‘unethical’ any research that disagrees with their dogmatic view of how to teach evolution,” said Chapman.

“Ohio State University has a number of science professors who publicly dissent from a Darwin-only policy,” added Chapman. “I hope they and university and state officials will stand up against the power tactics employed by the ideologues in this case. Otherwise, OSU could become a national example of tyrannous viewpoint discrimination in higher education.”

In 2002 Science Excellence for All Ohioans released a list of 52 Ohio scientists publicly supporting academic freedom to teach the scientific arguments for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution. The Ohio scientists represented a wide range of scientific disciplines, from entomology (insect zoology) to toxicology, from nuclear chemistry to engineering, from biochemistry to medicine and surgery. Some of the scientists are employed in business, industry, and research, but most teach at state and private universities. A third of the scientists on the list were at The Ohio State University in Columbus at that time. For more information visit: http://www.sciohio.org/scientist.htm

###

Saving souls from the corrosive effects of knowledge is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. God insists.

At least our friend David Heddle is helping the Astronomy crowd see the light :)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=67

“Jesus Christ, Heddle spams his unfunny, moronic brand of ‘humor’ *here*, too? Is there no sanctuary from his crap anywhere?”

Quote courtesy of “Andrew”.

Oops, my previous comment didn’t fit. I thought I was responding to something like this (from Talkorigins):

The Evolution News and Views of the “Discovery” Institute has a rather hypocritical article at the following URL:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/i­ndex.php?title=q_how_many_darw­in_sites_…

http://tinyurl.com/d7lyq

Here is how it starts:

Q: How many Darwin sites does it take to stem the tide of intelligent design?

A: As many as they can build!

Gee the antievolutionists have a far greater number of websites that the pro-science people do defending science against their attacks.

The “New” National Academies site is really nothing more than an index to pre-existing resources some of which are years old.

Anyway, since Meyers’ article had nothing to do with this, I thought I’d bring it up, and I’ll just repeat my previous comment here:

It is beautiful seeing the DI trying to make the slow wake-up of science to the threat of the IDiots into a bad thing.

Gee, I thought that evolution was controversial in the science community, and that growing numbers of scientists were joining the ID movement. I guess not, rather it seems that science is appalled at anything so idiotic as the DI peddles.

I think it’s great that more scientists in disciplines other than biology are waking up to ID’s far-reaching anti-scientific goals, but they should be aware that these guys are not all YEC’s, and those who are are not last generation’s Bible-waving YEC’s. From all the bloody noses Creationism has gotten in the past decades, they have learned how to make their arguments less obviously cranky, especially to the general public, and harder to argue against.

I am more than happy that Phil Plait wants “to go into battle” (although, frankly, I don’t care for the language - it feeds the IDists’ “culture war” mythology), but he better learn to know his enemy, or he’s in for a surprise.

Ixpata, that situation was discussed here a few days ago:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]27.html#more

It isn’t nearly as simple as his being discriminated against for the views he holds. The problem has to do with the makeup of his dissertation committee than with the topic of his thesis.

This may just be their response to the criticism that ID promoters only seem to want to defame evolution theory and not all those other, equally-well supported theories. We asked for it, now we’ve got it. But then, we know people like that won’t settle for 19th-century thinking…they would like to take us back to the 10th century. Theistic science knows no boundaries!

LOL, these are the same asshats that “take no position” on the age of the Earth / Universe.

They do not deserve to be taken seriously, may they get the ridicule they so richly deserve.

Back to the 10th century? More Darwinist exaggeration! Roger Bacon‘s On Experimental Science was published in 1268.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 723, byte 970 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

B(ig)A(ss)P(ickup)T(ruck)ist (many thanks to SBStory:-)

Do what?

I don’t remember saying that.

I think it’s great that more scientists in disciplines other than biology are waking up to ID’s far-reaching anti-scientific goals, but they should be aware that these guys are not all YEC’s, and those who are are not last generation’s Bible-waving YEC’s.

They should also be aware that ID is not a scientific movement, and will not be beaten by scientific arguments.

ID is a theocratic political movement, and it must be ebaten in the same way that every OTHER political movement is beaten.

And science, sad to say, has very little to do with that.

If scientists want to beat the IDers, they will have to get their hands dirty with real grassrooots political work.

Not that I likely have to mention it, but a perusal of

http://theocracywatch.org …

might be in order. It is much more than just science.

Yeah, verily.

This is a POLITICAL fight, not a scientific one.

The fine folks in Kansas have shown us how to beat them. I say, “Create two, three many Kansases!!!!!! Hasta la victoria siempre!!!”

Pennsylvania, you’re next . … .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Wrote:

Pennsylvania, you’re next . … .

Believe me when I say that it can’t happen too soon for some of us in PA (even if we don’t live in Dover).

Perhaps someone here can answer this. I’ve been noticing that the IDers have been talking about detecting design along the same lines as that done by forensics experts and the people at SETI. However, they have been unwilling to talk about methods of how this design supposedly takes place.

While I am not a forensic investigator, from what I understand, they look for signs of various methods used when detecting whether something was a murder or an accident. They look for a type of wound to determine the item used (such as a gun). They look at the angle of the wound and other factors to determine where the gun was fired from (to rule out self-inflicted accident or suicide). They look at the bullet itself to identify the pistol.

Even SETI is looking for something based on radio waves (which determines a method used to communicate and states something about the culture).

However, the IDers state nothing about the methods (aside from Behe’s “puff of smoke”) and nothing about the so-called designer. And, given the way they are going about it, they are actively avoiding saying anything about the method or designer. So how can they claim that they are doing this along the same lines of forensic investigators or SETI?

R.D.L.Flank: They should also be aware that ID is not a scientific movement, and will not be beaten by scientific arguments. ID is a theocratic political movement, and it must be ebaten in the same way that every OTHER political movement is beaten. And science, sad to say, has very little to do with that. If scientists want to beat the IDers, they will have to get their hands dirty with real grassrooots political work. … This is a POLITICAL fight, not a scientific one.

And it’s a relatively small brawl, even if we restrict our focus to the Christocrats and their attempts to dominate politics/culture/society (a strategically poor move, considering the power of their secular allies).

You ain’t seen nothing in terms of blatant lies, invented “facts”, denial of other perspectives, coercion, trickery, and hordes of well-meaning, highly motivated & utterly deluded citizens until you’ve survived your baptism by fire in the abortion-rights (“pro-choice”) arena.

Activists in the gay communities can tell much the same story, though references to science and to “science” are fewer than in either the evolution or abortion battles. Appeals to raw emotionalism are more the order of the day, which provides little to attract scientists but illustrates the mechanisms of anti-science crusaders very tellingly.

How ‘bout it, science people: who’s ready to “get their hands dirty with real grassroots political work” in joint projects with abortion-rights & gay-rights campaigners?

So far there hasn’t been a single US scientist’s bloody body found dangling on barbed wire, nor even one laboratory firebombed. The name-calling in the evolution debate hasn’t come anywhere near the level of venom those of us in “the culture of death” and “feces-eating sodomite cults” live with as routine background noise.

C’mon, isn’t science future oriented? We who’ve had our education from superChristians on the topics which exercise them most (hint: just about any issue relating to sex) have seen the wingnut future - are you just going to wait until it comes for you personally?

You ain’t seen nothing in terms of blatant lies, invented “facts”, denial of other perspectives, coercion, trickery, and hordes of well-meaning, highly motivated & utterly deluded citizens until you’ve survived your baptism by fire in the abortion-rights (“pro-choice”) arena.

Activists in the gay communities can tell much the same story, though references to science and to “science” are fewer than in either the evolution or abortion battles. Appeals to raw emotionalism are more the order of the day, which provides little to attract scientists but illustrates the mechanisms of anti-science crusaders very tellingly.

Dude, you should try being a union organizer in Florida. ;>

But hey, I was a human rights observer in Nicaragua during the Contra War, where people, on both sides, insisted on periodically tossing small copper-coated bits of lead towards me at very high velocity.

THAT wakes you up in the morning, let me tell ya.

Obligatory offtopic rant; it always annoys me that all the dolts who are most gung-ho for wars are those who’ve never *been* in one, and have never heard a shot fired in anger. Those of us who *have* been shot at, are in no hurry at all to have it happen again. To ANY-body.

Dude, you should try being a union organizer in Florida.  ;>

I’m a clinic escort in Florida. :-O

Only two of us have been shot here so far, which makes for a less hazardous avocation than union organizing or war-watching (or ambling around Miami after dark).

Maybe I’m misunderestimating the hazards of evolution advocacy in my customary naive innocence: have there been solid reports of post-debate punchouts, bricks through windows, threats against Dawkinses & Goulds, etc?

Should we start a betting pool on how long until the first/next such event?

My apologies to all concerned if this cheery chatter in his Official Welcoming Thread sends Phil Plait, like Hal Jordan, back to the stars for ever…

So far there hasn’t been a single US scientist’s bloody body found dangling on barbed wire, nor even one laboratory firebombed.

What happen if we drop the phrase “US” and the modern connotations as well.

I’m just speculating here, but perhaps there are signs that this kind of mindlessness is abating (slowly). No scientist has been burned at the stake in a long time. There is genuine progress being made, maybe not necassarily in the US but elsewhere. There are countries that recognise same sex unions, Spain a formerly staunch catholic nation is about to join their ranks. The term marriage has religous connotations so I’m not using it here.

I’m not suggesting that we should become complacent. Maybe another bad analogy, but it’s the last few pests that are the most expensive to erradicate (virtual beer to the person who picks my nationality at this point).

If we become complacent however, then we will be overwhelmed by the barbarians.

Their weak point is all the lies they tell.

Has anyone tried citing some of those lies and then citing John 8:32?  Perhaps with a sly comparison of the most blatant liars to the Prince of Lies?  If we can find a way to convince the faithful that the truth-twisters are closer to heretical than holy, the battle is won.

How ‘bout it, science people: who’s ready to “get their hands dirty with real grassroots political work” in joint projects with abortion-rights & gay-rights campaigners?

I suspect such an approach would be counter-productive, at least from a science-advocacy position. Two reasons I can think of.

1. The “Us vs. Them” battle lines aren’t quite drawn the same way in the evolution debates. There are a fair number of pro-science conservatives, and a fair number of anti-Darwinian (Neo-Lamarkian, or vitalist) liberals.

2. The I.D.ists are gaining ground only because they’ve dragged the evolution issue out of the lab into the political battlefield. When evolutionary scientists form political coalitions, they play right into the hands of the I.D. politicization strategy and make it easier for the DI to drive their wedge in deeper.

Which isn’t to say that I don’t personally approve of the reproductive rights and gay rights movements. I wholeheartedly do.

Welcome the new recruits! The Discovery Institute succeeded in being discovered by astronomist, physicists and cosmologists!

Meteorologists - be ready!

We engineers, it seems to me, shall be exempted from this battle. The Bible has nothing against the Stokes equation nor our most famous engineers, like Mr Montgomery “Beam me up, Scotty” Scott, can be compared to Ch. Darwin.

I don’t like the warlike metaphor of “recruits”. This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be. I think “battle” metaphors have done a lot of damage to western civilization, in the legal system, in philosophy and even in science.

Oops, sorry Steve, I could only remember that a Raleighite had used that prhase and you were the only Raleigh dweller I could remember. Michael Rathburn said it here. Paul

jaimito - I’m not so sure we’ll be exempted. Remember, part of the ID argument is that methodological naturalism implies naturalism in all things.

That means that if you build a bridge assuming it will stand or fall as the result of natural forces (say, the resistance of concrete to compression), and not by the will of God, you’re one of those dirty stinking naturalists!

This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be.

No it’s not. It’s a struggle over political power and who gets to weild it. It’s a fight, literally, between democracy and theocracy.

And the sooner scientists realize that, the sooner we can beat the fundies. If we continue to view this as a scholarly science debate, the the fundies will kick our collective asses.

With the leadership (sick) of the Creationists and their ID fronts there really is no way to negotiate and/or compromise. You cannot work with people who openly and knowingly lie about , well, everything and anything in order to control and milk their flocks. We can be patient and determined, on this and every other issue, and seek out any reasonable person somehow caught on the wrong side for honest and negotiable reasons. True conservatives are by no means the enemy of democracy or science, in the best sense of those words, though they have to learn to see the self-serving nature of (most of) their arguments (as liberals like myself have to recognise the basic suspicions most people have of anything new and unfamiliar). The key test is: can someone admit they don’t have all the answers, and can recognise merit in the arguments of any truth-based opposition. Fanatis cannot, and Fundamentalists almost by definition move towards fanaticism unless checked by reality, or by a determined opposition that saps their numbers.

Yeah, I’m afraid the “civilized academic debate” was settled about a century ago. Scientists have been engaging in that ideal, non-militaristic fashion for quite some time, and still are – those discussions go on in the pages of the journals. Unfortunately, while we have been doing everything in the proper civilized way, the forces of ignorance have not; they have lied their way into considerable power.

Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids’ high school is a creationist. Last year, the education commissioner in my state tried to subvert the recommendations for the state science standards by packing a hand-picked ‘minority report’ committee to push for required instruction in intelligent design creationism in our schools. All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.

This is insane.

Please don’t try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough.

the problem is hardly that this small minority of concerned scientists isn’t shrill enough. there’s too few such scientists. The majority of scientists do not bother to promote these ideas. And some scientists seem hostile to science-publicizing colleagues.

PZ Meyers Wrote:

Here I am, a biologist living in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the two biology teachers in my kids’ high school is a creationist. Last year, the education commissioner in my state tried to subvert the recommendations for the state science standards by packing a hand-picked ‘minority report’ committee to push for required instruction in intelligent design creationism in our schools. All across the country, we have these lunatics trying to stuff pseudoscientific religious garbage into our schools and museums and zoos.

You are right on the mark here. The Undiscovery Institute people are worse than a pack of Scientology lawyers and are better financed and politically connected that the Scamatology frauds. Looks like they learned a lot from them.

From the Scientology v. Education website: July 29, 2004 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Class yields a surprise subject http://studytech.org/archives/000062.php

From the article-

“Study Technology has its defenders, and they adamantly deny trying to promote a religion in the classroom. UW-Fond du Lac officials, for the record, say they’re comfortable with the summer enrichment offering.

Abler declined Thursday to identify her religious background and said she never tried to promote Scientology in the classroom.

“I’m teaching a study skills class - it’s a totally secular class,” Abler said, adding that she welcomed calls and visits from parents.”

Darkling: I’m just speculating here, but perhaps there are signs that this kind of mindlessness is abating (slowly).  No scientist has been burned at the stake in a long time.  There is genuine progress being made, maybe not necassarily in the US but elsewhere.

There is genuine regression being made in the US, which is a problem both for those of us in the US and those subject to its “sole superpower” status. The core of the problem is that we’re dealing not with conservatives but reactionaries, and that their goal is power without compromise.

PRB: …who’s ready to “get their hands dirty with real grassroots political work” in joint projects with abortion-rights & gay-rights campaigners?

Alex: I suspect such an approach would be counter-productive, at least from a science-advocacy position…

I was both serious and not here.

Serious, because Christocrats threaten both science & personal autonomy. I doubt they will be defeated or even held to a tie by fragmented opposition.

Not so serious, because “progressive” (for lack of a better term) politics is, as Alex notes, already divided among all sorts of issues, each with a set of advocacy organizations. Attempts to build coalitions run into the same problem: some members of group X will disagree with the position of group Y; X will probably lose members if it agrees to work with Y.

In my tiny local antiwar group, for example, there are a few anti-abortion members, while the majority are pro-choice. We agree to stay focused on warissues for the sake of peace. Likewise, the pro-choicers that I know are almost all anti-war, but they know their organizations would take a hit if they spoke out against the madness. So, the Busheviks are secure in never having to face a united resistance. (All they have to face are the Democrats, who seem paralyzed by this challenge [among others], and few of whom are willing to mention the war at all: I would say their new mascot should be a jellyfish, except those at least can sting.)

So: no, I’m not proposing a major pro-science, pro-choice, pro-human-rights, pro-other-good-stuff coalition - at least not as such. But I am hoping that all of us will recognize that we’re confronting different heads of the same monster, and offer mutual support whenever possible.

But I am hoping that all of us will recognize that we’re confronting different heads of the same monster, and offer mutual support whenever possible.

“First they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists

And I did not speak out –

Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out –

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me –

And there was no-one left

To speak out for me.”

Pastor Niemöller, 1938

For the newbies to this fight, who may not understand the political realities behind it, I offer:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html

This fight has virtually nothing to do with science, and it will not be won by science.

Timothy Scriven Wrote:

I don’t like the warlike metaphor of “recruits”. This is a civilized academic debate in a first world country, or should be. I think “battle” metaphors have done a lot of damage to western civilization, in the legal system, in philosophy and even in science.

Heh. I wish. This is nothing less than a battle for the mind of North America and later the world. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the enemies of science have even a 10th of the decency and morality of a typical scientist. These are people who exemplify “the end justifies the means” in its most unadulterated form. “Civilized academic debate”? I would advise that you return to the planet Earth.

Lenny Wrote:

For the newbies to this fight, who may not understand the political realities behind it, I offer:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm …

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/diagenda.html …

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html …

Thanks, Lenny, for the obvious effort that you put in to this. I hadn’t come across your site yet. Plenty of interesting reading.

Thanks, Lenny, for the obvious effort that you put in to this. I hadn’t come across your site yet. Plenty of interesting reading.

Information is a weapon.

I want everyone who fights IDers to be well-armed.

I am struck by the irony of ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Frank using the poem by Niemöller as an implied criticism of IDs. Thus far, the only people I am aware of who might actually have been persecuted for their beliefs in this whole matter are the IDs themselves. There do appear to be some cases in which ID advocates who otherwise would be accepted as good scientists, have been singled out by their institutions for their views on this issue. Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State is a clear example; the petition against him was organized (was it not?) by a faculty member who serves as faculty advisor to the campus atheist organization–an affiliation he has every right to have, but which also speaks loudly in my view of his attempt to discredit Dr Gonzalez. Just in the past few days, a biologist at the Univ of Idaho had his academic freedom denied by the president, who forbids his *science* faculty from discussing ID in classes, although faculty in other depts may do so if they wish. I regard that as a clear infringement of this scientist’s academic freedom.

I am no advocate of ID, as anyone can easily determine. I am however an advocate of academic freedom. If I were given a similar directive, I’d sue the university–and it would be interesting to see whether the ACLU would then do the right thing and take the case.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on June 13, 2005 9:11 AM.

Kansas Hearings: Harris was the previous entry in this blog.

The Tangled Bank looms is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter