Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)

Very interesting post from The Religious Prof, aka Professor James F. McGrath.  It discusses the difference between Scholarship and Skepticism:

There is an unfortunate tendency in many circles to suppose that critical scholarship consists of pronouncing negative judgments on early Christians’ own self-understanding of their origins. I would suggest that this is a misunderstanding of what it means to be a critical historian. The critical historian is one who formulates a question, attends to the data relevant to answering that question, weighs possible answers, and then affirms that answer which handles the relevant data best. Sometimes that will much resemble early Christians’ self-understanding of their own origins; sometimes it will be remarkably at variance therewith. The skeptic supposes programmatically that the best answer will be at variance with traditional narratives. That is bias, the bias known as skepticism, which takes as its sinister twin the bias known as credulity: the programmatic supposition that the best answer will be fully congruent with traditional narratives. Both arbitrarily close off possible answers before the investigation even begins. As such, the spirit of critical thought is programmatically opposed to both. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2017/01/skepticism-vs-scholarship.html)

I underlined what I think are the takeaways, at least for me.  It reminded me of an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show.  Eric Braeden, who had played one of my favorite characters from an even older show "The Rat Patrol",  played a critic who had joined the staff at Mary's television studio.  He was a critic who was critical of absolutely everything, nothing was good in any form and he never said a positive thing about anything.  As with this TV character, I've often found critics focusing on the negative, looking for the perceived problems with no regard for anything positive.

When it comes to being critical of science, the above quote really hit home.  How many critics of current science are not 'critics' at all, but skeptics or out-and-out deniers?  They enter into any area with the automatic assumption that science, and scientists, are already wrong and come into the conversation with a different 'answer', even ones that do not align with any of the evidence.

Look at the Discovery Institute (DI), my favorite target.  How much evidence have they offered supporting their pet religious concept Intelligent Design (ID)?  Absolutely none, and yet they are intensely skeptical of any science that doesn't have a religious imprint.  As new scientific discoveries are made, you can bet that shortly thereafter they will try and put an ID spin on it, regardless of the fact the discovery doesn't support it.

Look at little kennie ham and his Answers in Genesis (AiG) ministry, another favorite.  How skeptical is ham and Co. of real science, and yet again offers nothing but belief in his version of the Bible in return.  Both the DI and AiG cloak their skepticism/denial as if they are being critical, but since they already have their 'answer', they aren't!

If you doubt that, look at the tactic commonly referred to as their "Academic freedom campaign", a campaign that has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with protecting any teacher who teaches Creationism/ID in science class, cloaking their religion under the guise of academic freedom.

They have even started another petition the poorly named "Academic Freedom Petition".  Right on the first page they highlight four 'martyrs' for the cause, yet they have to lie about them to sell their story.  Here's what the DI says on their petition site:

• In Washington state, high school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school because he wanted students to learn about both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution discussed in science journals.
• In Minnesota, Rodney LeVake was dismissed from teaching high school biology after expressing doubts about the scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory.
• In Texas, biology teacher Allison Jackson was ordered to stop presenting students with information critical of key aspects of modern Darwinian theory.
• In Mississippi, chemistry professor Dr. Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture criticizing Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.

Yet the truth is Roger DeHart was always an old fashioned Creationist and latched onto ID late in his public school teaching career.  he wasn't 'driven away', but was re-assigned teaching duties that didn't involve teaching his religion -- eventually he resigned and started teaching at a Christian school. 

Rodney LeVake wasn't dismissed either.  After it was made clear that LeVake was refusing the teach the prescribed curriculum in 10th grade biology, he was also re-assigned to 9th grade general science which did not include any evolutionary theory.  He sued the school district and lost as every turn.

I can't find much about Allison Jackson, other that the DI's own comment about her being ordered to stop teaching her religion.  I would have to say she was probably doing exactly what the others were doing and got caught.  There is an Allison Jackson who is now associated with:

"The Society for Classical Learning (SCL) has existed since the mid-1990s to facilitate and encourage thinking and discussion among professionals associated with Christ-centered education in the liberal arts tradition."

My further guess would be that the DI wants to present her as another martyr for the cause, but the reality is she got caught between her professional responsibilities and her religious beliefs and made the choice to abandon her responsibilities.  What did I say just a few posts back (Religious Beliefs vs. Personal and Professional Responsibilities) about what to do when you are caught in such a predicament?  Either accept your responsibilities or get out of the situation.  It looks like Allison got out, but not until she was disciplined for failing in her duties.

As for Dr. Bryson, exactly how and why she left her teaching position at the Mississippi University for Women is unclear, there are conflicting reports, including hearings and a change of heart by the administration after announcing her contract wouldn't be renewed.  But even she admitted that her views on Evolution were based on religion and not science.  Here is a very small part of Dr. Bryson's testimony during the Kansas Hearings from 2005.  Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer is asking the questions, Dr. Bryson is answering:

Q. Now, that opinion that you have about intelligent design, that's not based on science, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That's based upon your theistic views?
A. Correct.
Q. And you would agree with me that religion has no place in science?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would agree with me that in a science curriculum religion should not be included, correct?
A. Correct. 

So you see, this isn't critical thinking, or really any scholarship involved, just pure and simple dishonesty.  I would have respected any of the 4 who decided to resign their positions BEFORE abdicating their responsibilities.  But if they had, the DI wouldn't be declaring their martyr-hood.
Does anyone every see any signs of scholarship from the DI?  What we get is skepticism and denial-ism and a bunch of creative writing purposefully designed [pun-intended] to disguise their religious beliefs.

The original quote, at the top of this post, discusses biases.  The DI consistently accuses the scientific community of being biased against their pet ideas.  Yet, who is actually being biased?  Look at their four martyrs, can anyone explain how they are the victim of bias, or are their students and the schools  that hired them the victims of their bias in favor of their religious beliefs.

The Discovery Institute is 'monkeying' around with a new survey

We've discussed this penchant for surveys by the Discovery Institute (DI) before (here and here).  If you remember, my issue was how they like to poll with very innocuous sounding phrases and then spin the results and claim it shows some sort of support for one position or another.  Most often it's to denigrate science and science education and this poll is a perfect example!  "Scientists Versus the Public on Airing Scientific Dissent", by little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

This time around, the DI presented a series of statements and asked some group of people through Survey Monkey to rate them on a 4-level scale,  'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' with the statement.  Here are the statements from their latest poll (source):

1. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. Scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.
3. Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.
4. It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.
5. People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘antiscience.’
6. Disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.

Now while the wording seems pretty basic, what do these phrases imply?  Here is how I see it:

1. That teachers and students do not currently have the freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. That scientists do not have the freedom to raise scientific criticisms of evolution.
3. That holding a dissenting view results in censorship and punishment.
4. The policymakers and the public do not hear dissenting views.
5. Anyone who holds a disagreement are labeled as 'anti-science'.
6. The since dissenting views are not allowed, there haven't been any new insights of new discoveries in science.

Now, you might think I am reading these implications into the survey; however, if that weren't true then this latest post from the DI, also by klingy, would never been written.  "Evolution's Enforcers Are Waaaaay Out of Step with Public Opinion".  Klingy is confirming that according to the DI, there is no freedom to discuss, dissent, or hold opposing views.

So the real question is not whether or not you agree with the DI's statements, but whether or not the implications of their statements reflect reality.  What do you think?

First of all students and teachers discuss scientific criticism of any scientific theory, including evolution, all the time.  The key here is scientific criticism.  Granted high school science classes might not have the time, nor resources, to spend a great deal of time on scientific criticisms, they still have the academic freedom to do so.

In fact, have you heard of a single person being censored or punished for discussing scientific criticisms?  Not at any public or secular schools!  The DI likes to trot out a list of people, like Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Crocker, and Richard Sternberg.  But anyone who examines those cases soon realizes that these folks weren't dealing with scientific criticisms, just run-of-the-mill religious criticisms dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.  Their religion either prevented them from doing their job, or interfered with them doing their job, in any event they were held accountable . . . not for their beliefs, but not doing their job!  Unlike the DI's rogues gallery, there have been quite a few cases of teachers being punished and censored from teaching real science! Chris Comer and Tom Oord's situations come to immediate mind.

Now I have another name I wanted to mention, one I have discussed on numerous occasions, William Dembski.  If you recall Dembski figured in a number of  . . . incidents  . . . centered around his support of ID and Creationism.  One of the ones I mentioned a while ago was how quickly Wild Bill changed his tune about the reality of Noah's Flood.  Here is the write-up in Wikipedia (I added the underlines):

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth.  He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East.  This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal.  In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood."  Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just a couple of days ago the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind".  In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

"this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

Interesting turn of phrase, Theological Correctness.  So while we have a certain amount of imagined censorship and punishment for dissent of current science on the part of the DI, and yet when we find actual censorship and punishment we find even people who are ID supporters who have to toe a fundamentalist line or find themselves unemployed because they were not fundie enough!  So which side is actually guilty of censorship and punishment for dissenting views?  Certainly doesn't look like it's science, does it?


Back to the survey statements themselves.  It's obvious that they are designed (pun intended) to make you think such freedom to discuss, criticize, or dissent doesn't exist, but once you remember the whole purpose in life of the DI you can see why they want you to think so.  In the past, when has the DI ever been an advocate of academic freedom?  Look at the text and purpose of their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bills.  The purpose of such bills, which have been defeated is all but two states that have tried to pass one, is to weaken science education and allow their religion (Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)) to wedge its way into the curriculum.  That's not made up . . that is their stated goal!

Barbra Forrest, you might remember her from the Dover Trial, just yesterday (July 7, 2016) had this to say about one of those bills:

" . . . the deceptively titled “Louisiana Science Education Act” was promoted exclusively by the Louisiana Family Forum, a right-wing religious lobbying group that has promoted creationism since its founding, and the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank in Seattle. The law is an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which nullified a 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism in public schools."("Letters: Here are the facts on La.’s Science Education Act")

Simple question, if a car mechanic refused to actually repair cars, should the garage who hired them keep them on the payroll?  Again, that's what the DI wants.  They hate the fact that people like Gonzales and Crocker were held accountable for their actions because they were failing in the job they were hired to do!  The list of all the supposed 'victims' of censorship and discrimination that the DI likes to wave around can all be traced back to their unwillingness or inability to do their job! That's not censorship or discrimination!  How much would car repairs cost of you had to help pay the salaries of people who 'worked' at the garage but who didn't perform any duties that fall under the heading of work?

I do like how they changed things after the second survey statement.  Did you notice how they dropped the word 'scientific'?  Just as an exercise, tuck it back in and see how it changes the meaning of the sentence.  Scientists who hold dissenting 'scientific' views should not be censored or punished . . . now have you noticed that at no time does the DI identify anyone who has been censored or punished for holding a dissenting scientific view?  So in their words, a dissenting view, regardless of its scientific viability, is just as important as a non-dissenting view.  So Astrology is an viable as Astronomy, Chemistry to Alchemy,  . . . you see where such a list can end.  Next thing you know we will be requiring our Math teachers to teach Numerology and Architects to cover Feng Shui.

People disagree with science all the time.  It's not the disagreement that makes someone like Jenny McCarthy 'anti-science', it's the snake oil she's peddling in its place that is anti-science.  There is no evidence that supports vaccines cause autism, none!  Jenny is anti-science!  The DI is anti-science, not because they disagree with science, but because they want to put their religion in its place.  Look at the tactics of people like McCarthy and the DI.  They don't promote their own ideas as much as they attack actual science with nothing but marketing, unsupported ideas, and lots of politicking.  Yes, they are anti-science not because they disagree, but because how what they do and say in what they are offering in its place.

For example my daughter is questioning the need for my granddaughter to receive the HPV vaccine.  She is questioning based on several specific things, like how the vaccine only protects from a small set of viruses, and not the more common ones and how HPV and the related cancers do not run in either side of my granddaughter's family tree.  What she isn't doing is raising irresponsible and outright lies about vaccines in general, but she has some specific concerns.  It doesn't make her anti-science, what it does do is make her cautious and wants to discuss it further with a actual medical professional before making a decision.  The applicable label isn't 'anti-science', but 'parent'.

The final statement of theirs is equally ridiculous, scientists criticize current scientific theories all the time.  That's where new scientific advances come from.  So again, I agree with the bare-bones statement.  But it's not the dissenting opinion that brings about new advances in science.  It's the scientists who put in the actual scientific work to support their views that end up becoming new advances in science.  Name me one scientific advance that is solely based on having a dissenting view?  There isn't one!  But this sort of statement is typical of the DI.  They are either unwilling or unable to do the real science to support their ideas . . . so they imply that no one is allowed to have a dissenting view, simply because no one takes them seriously because their dissenting view is not based on science, but on theology.

In closing this much longer than intended post, I recall something from a few years back, a quote from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe ID to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here:

"The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

Honesty From the NCSE brings out the Foolishness in the DI, but then most things do, don't they?

Do these guys even read articles before responding to them?  I'm talking about the Discovery Institute (DI), of course.  It's somewhat funny.  I read a lot of articles and blogs and am always looking for something that peaks my interest to blog about.  As I look back over my own posts I do see two very common targets, The DI and Answers in Genesis (AiG).  For a few minutes I thought maybe I was targeting them too often and that I was missing other, more interesting, things.  Then they come along and say something so incredibly foolish that I just can't help posting about it.

Case in point "Sleepless in Oakland" is a response to an National Center for Science Education post "The Big Bang is Giving Me Big Headaches".  I really suggest you read the NCSE post before diving into the idiocy of Donald McLaughlin's response.

Reading through the NCSE post was interesting.  It wasn't a precise about the Big Bang, but more a description of Minda Berbeco's emotional reaction to learning more about the Big Bang.  She recognizes that answering many scientific questions isn't about the data, but about dealing with misconceptions that have become rooted in people's emotions.  As she says:

"Although data is powerful, most often the conflicts teachers experience have nothing to do with evidence."

Anyone who has wandered the web and read and responded to some of the wild things being said about such topics as Evolution, The Big Bang, and Climate Change has experienced this first hand.  Here is a very recent example.  I have a Facebook page.  I don't use it for too much but just the other day I saw a Facebook post from the DI from the First of Feb:

It was a link to their self-conducted poll that we talked about in "A New 'Poll' conducted by the DI says what the DI says, what a surprise!"  Well to be honest when I saw the post I nearly just ignored it, but out of curiosity I wanted to see if anyone responded to it.  I was pretty shocked at the responses.  The very first reply I saw was this one:

"Alyson Miller Hi, I'm a biology teacher who teaches a LOT of evolution to a LOT of bright kids - so far, I haven't seen a single piece of quantifiable evidence against the facts supporting Darwin's Theory. Please show me one. Remember - I teach science, so it's got to be a measurable piece of evidence from the natural world, not the supernatural world. :-)"

I wasn't surprised reading her post, it made perfect sense to me. How often we hear the cry to teach both sides, but then no one seems to be able to find things contrary to evolution that are measurable.  It's usually conjecture and wishful thinking that they invest in emotionally.  Often people complain about teaching both sides of a topic as some level of 'fairness', but when the two sides are obviously not dealing with the same context, covering both in order to be 'fair' is actually completely artificial. It was something we previously discussed several times, including "Is it really fair? and Arguments IX - Should students learn arguments for and against Evolution?"

What did surprise me were many of the responses to her comment.  Here are a few:

Benjamin Parker Lori, then you are doing your students a disservice because you are teaching them PSEUDOscience. Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. Any idiot can look at two fossils and FANTASIZE ancestry but that is NOT evidence but pure speculation, lies or wishful thinking.

Michael Norten Do you teach junk science out of ignorance or rebellion?
Lori Bourque Where is the missing link? Why are there still apes? Why do 2 planets revolve counter. clockwise? Who was the master designer? Evolution has a lot of missing data..I opt opt for the heavenly designer....God the father of all creation

Benjamin Parker Evolution IS a religion which is why you evos steadfastly defend it despite the utter lack of evidence to support it. That's why even after being shown all the evidence shown AGAINST it ever occurring, you evos STILL cling to your evolutionary FAITH. That's called brainwashing.

Kenneth Davis Sorry Alyson but the facts you're referring to have only been connected to evolutionary theory with speculation. For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another. In other words, all the bacteria and fruit flies that have ever mutated still remained bacteria and fruit flies and never any new organism. Nat. selection was built into each organism for adaptation but not with any possibility of becoming a new creature. The transitions are totally nonexistent.

Lori Bourque Doug I beg to differ there is mounds of evidence..literal physical and spiritual..what do you think is happening now it is the final battle and it was written thousands of years ago and it is unfolding before our eyes God knew the end from the beginning! This is the final battle

Mory Von Werner I always go back to first life. As of yet no one can explain how a putative first life could start. As you know, the first life would have to been incredibly complex --- thousands, if not millions of amino acid structural, functional tertiary and chiral machines. This Protobiont would necessarily have DNA information storage, and the information able to be read by RNA and move on to the Ribosome for building. All this had to fall together by chance in roiling seas, the chirality thing is off the charts impossible! But there's more! It needs a phospholipid cell wall to protect the functioning cell machinery. So, you need DNA to make a Cell wall, but DNA would not form in a perfect environment, much less the open roiling seas it was purported to have formed---no cell wall. And, not just here, but on billions of plantets--- thus, starting life all over this universe. The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)

That's just a small sample of the well over 100 responses her single comment received.  Just look at some of the misconceptions people have stated, clearly they have little knowledge of the subject, or I should say subjects.  A total misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory is about the only way to explain comments like 

• "Evolution is a fraud. There's absolutely no facts or evidence to support it. "
•  "Evolution IS a religion "
• "Missing Link . . ."
• "For example no observed evidence has shown that natural selection changed an organism from one distinctive type to another."
• "The whole thing is dead in the water if abiogenisis is not possible (and it's not)"

What has happened to basic science education?  If you keep reading, it gets even worse.  The most common mistakes made by many of the posters reveals not only a lack of knowledge about evolution, but a totally dogmatic view of any potential alternative, regardless of its lack of scientific support!  

Today's Non-Sequitur is a particularly good one to illustrate these points.  I am posting the image here because many of the comic strip sites remove the images after a while.  I got it here. 

Now McLaughlin is a new name to me, so I decided to check him out just a little before even reading his response.  Here is part of his short bio from the DI:

"Donald McLaughlin joined Discovery Institute in August 2013, as a Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast regions. His areas of responsibility include cultivating and stewarding major gifts, and planned giving. Donald has had a successful career in development, including 8 years as a Regional Director of Advancement for Prison Fellowship Ministries, 2 years as National Director of Major Gifts for Teen Mania Ministries and 5 years as Regional Director of Advancement for Taylor University."(DI bio)

Now before getting into anything else, please note the following:  Prison Fellowship Ministries, Teen Mania Ministries, and Taylor University (a Christian liberal arts college in Indiana).  I just have to say this, for an organization that keeps trying to distance themselves from any religious connections, this is the type of person you hire?  Seriously?  Who was the past new employee I commented about?  Oh yes, Heather Zeigler.  Do you remember her?  I don't know if she still works there, but when they announced her hiring they tried to hide her religious education and affiliations. (So there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design? Part II)

So just what is McLaughlin's job?  Is he their resident expert on the Big Bang?  On Biology?  On Cosmology?  No, he's their 'Development Officer and Regional Representative in the upper Midwest and Northeast' who seems to be responsible for asking for and collecting donations.  Which obviously qualifies him to defend anything said about the Big Bang and the emotional impact such topics might cause in people!  I guess with little casey luskin's departure, they needed a new second-stringer to pinch hit for the big boys who are still crying over the UMC debacle (The Discovery Institute (DI) Doesn't get Invited to the Really Good Parties, The United Methodists Explain their Denial of the DI, and the DI disagrees . . . Surprise, Surprise!, and The Discovery Institute has named their 'Censor of the Year' for 2016).

So what did little casey's replacement have to say? Not much! He tried to defend the indefensible concerning the DI's poorly-named academic freedom bills, something else we've discussed often (Are Academic Freedom Laws Anti-Science?).  Then he pretty much misrepresents what Minda said in an effort to twist things around . . . in other words typical DI spin.

Here is the one that really cracked me up.  He quotes Sir Arthur Eddington:

"The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold." 

So here is an Astronomer who passed away in 1944, who exemplified support for the Steady State Universe concept that was replaced years later by the Big Bang Theory with the advent of such supporting evidence as the cosmic microwave background radiation.  Couldn't find anyone more recent?  Donnie not only used him to justify the DI's religious beliefs, but he then postulates about Sir Arthur's sleeping issues.  

OK, that's enough of that.  Time to close this thing out, and Donnie's closing is pretty funny:

"For someone who has staked her professional career on that insistence that intelligent design is illusory, I see why that would lead to some sleepless nights."

No!  Minda has staked her professional career on science and scientific methodology.  Intelligent Design provides hours of humor, not sleepless nights.  But I guess there is no scientific subject that would give you any sleep trouble.  After all, Donnie, all you need to do is keep passing a collection plate.  Don't worry, as long as there are churches, you'll be employed!

Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?

It's coming up on Feb 12th, a day referred to as Darwin Day.  Wikipedia calls Darwin Day:

"a celebration to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin on 12 February 1809. The day is used to highlight Darwin's contribution to science and to promote science in general. Darwin Day is celebrated around the world." (Wikipedia: Darwin's Day)

Of course, you know the Discovery Institute (DI) doesn't celebrate Darwin the way the rest of the world does.  They try and co-opt the day and celebrate what they call "Censor of the Year".  While Darwin Day celebrations go back pretty far, sporadically since 1882.  The DI's version is only a few years old.  But before discussing that, I would like to discuss Censorship.  I have a feeling that the DI's idea of censorship and the rest of the world is quite a bit different . . . just like Feb 12th. is celebrated differently.

Just to start on a level playing field, here is the dictionary definition of Censor:

"a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc." (Merriam-Webster: Censor)

We have all seen the effects of censorship.  Prior to a film's release, it gets edited to conform to rules concerning objectionable material.  During wartime, correspondence to and from people within the war zone was censors to prevent the release of sensitive material.  When I was stationed in the Republic of Korea, I purchased albums . . . yes, actual vinyl . . . that were censored by the South Korean government to eliminate objectionable material.  Based on all that, I have a question, just who is censoring the Discovery Institute?

I know they have accused two people as their 'Censor of the Year' previously, and they are currently looking for nominations for this year.  But, based on history, are they being censored?  Is someone taking their publications and videos and removing anything?  No, no one is.  If that was so, don't you think they would be raising an actual hue-and-cry, instead they are inventing things to cry about?

The two previous 'winners' for 'censor of the year' are Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Coyne's 'crime' was encouraging Ball State University to stop teaching Intelligent Design.  That's not exactly true.  What Ball State University did was stop teaching Intelligent Design as if it was science.  Not that you would expect the DI to get the facts straight.  They used their usual tactics, claiming that the University was violating 'Academic Freedom', but as we, and many others have said, actual academic freedom does not include teaching pseudo-science is if it was science.  They certainly targeted Coyne, more as sore-losers than anything else.

But before moving on to Tyson, what is the evidence that Jerry Coyne censored the Discovery Institute?  None at all.  It seems that the DI wants to ability to say whatever they want, but when anyone voices any form of opposition, that's not free speech, but censorship!  How Marie Antoinette of them!  It is not censorship to speak out against something.  Like I said earlier, the DI and the rest of the world have a different definition of censorship.  No one is stopping them from giving presentations, releasing videos, or publishing articles and books.  What they are upset about it that no one is buying into their marketing efforts which means mainline scientific conferences, actual science journals, and most university science programs ignore them.  That's not censorship!  You have to earn your place in science, and to date, marketing is not science.

Now, what did the DI claim Neil deGrasse Tyson did to offend them?  He hosted  the updated Carl Sagan series Cosmos.  Yes, the DI didn't like Cosmos, why?  I'm sure they had lots of reasons, but their main objections seems to be that several segments dealt with some of religions' negative impacts on scientific inquiry.  Of course while they officially claim not to be a religious organization, this shouldn't have bothered them.  But since we all know that's not true, I bet it really aggravated them.  Tyson also had, what I considered, an epic take down of Bill O'Reilly (You know, the Ann Coulter for people who cannot read)  when he said "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance". 

So, once again I would like to ask the DI, just what censorship did Neil deGrasse Tyson do against the DI?  There doesn't seem to be much evidence of censorship at all, just opposition.

So I think we now have a pretty good idea of what the DI calls 'censorship', it is saying anything that the DI doesn't like.  Based on that, I am willing to bet the United Methodist Church will be one of the nominations.  I would have to assume that folks like PZ Meyrs, Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne are perennial nominees.  So will they be predictable, or will they really piled on the silly crap on some other unsuspecting 'honoree'.  I know I won't be, my little corner of the web just doesn't have the readership to really get their goat.  I can only hope that one day I might be so awarded!  That would be fun!

So there we have it.  While the rest of the world celebrates Darwin Day, including many Darwin-centric presentations in Church Pulpits from many of the signatories of the Clergy Letter Project.  The DI will be spinning up a new set of lies against someone who isn't censoring them, just exhibiting some vocal and visible opposition to their version of Creationism.  Whoever they are, I hope they pay as much attention to it as it deserves, nothing at all.

Discovery Institute Omerta?

I'm a little torn reading this "Creationism Whistleblower: ‘Academic Freedom’ Is Sneak Attack on Evolution" mainly because I don't want to be guilty of one of the things I have said about many others, usually creationists.  One of my issues is that all too often when someone reads something that agrees with them, usually in a philosophical sense, they immediately voice their agreement with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  But all too often the next step is they are willing to say incredibly ridiculous things to defend it for no other reason that the philosophical agreement.

Over on Topix, for example, there is a poster whose main defense of his religious beliefs is the 'Law of Biogenesis' which, according to him, completely disproves the Theory of Evolution and thereby making his religious belief the only possible way life could have formed on Earth.  He conveniently ignores what the 'law' actually addressed, which was the belief in 'spontaneous generation' which claimed that life arises from non-life, addressing things such as maggots 'appearing' in meat, fleas came from dust, molds in bread, and so forth.  Pasteur repeated and expanded upon earlier experiments that proves the source of these forms of life were not inanimate materials.  The poster, who calls himself 'marksman11' co-opted the term and completely changed what Pasteur did in order to rationalize his religious belief in a form of Creationism.

For another example, look at the lengths little kennie ham and his Hamians over at Answers in Genesis will go to support their narrow beliefs . . . I mean 'rafts of trees knocked down by 'The Flood' to transport animals all over the world' as a rationalization for geographical biodiversity?  Seriously?  So when I read this article, I wanted to make sure I wasn't falling into the same trap . . . because I completely agree with every word said! 

If you aren't familiar with Zach Kopplin, he first came into public view fighting the poorly named "Louisiana Science Education Act" as a high school student in Louisiana.  He's been publicly recognized and awarded for his tireless efforts in support of science education and hopefully one day his efforts to have that ridiculous bill repealed will be successful!  In this article on 'The Daily Beast' site he interviews an unidentified former-employee of the Discovery Institute and that employee reveals a number of things that are really no surprise.  I don't normally like unnamed sources, but I also understand why some people wouldn't want to become a public face.  In all honestly I have no idea why anyone would want their  . . . 15 minutes of fame . . . in the first place.  Guess I am not wired that way.  But some of the things they say are things that I, and many others, have been saying for years.  Here is a small sample:

“DI [The Discovery Institute] is religiously motivated in all they do,”

“Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,  . . . That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.”

Zach closed his article with a great line:

"Real academic freedom is important, but creationists like the Discovery Institute have corrupted its meaning to miseducate children." 

My only addition to the list of words the DI hollows out and fills them with their own purposes is 'Peer-Reviewed', which I discussed in a post just yesterday (Is it Peer-Reviewed?).  Keep up the good work Zach!  Would it be appropriate to say you are a credit to Louisiana High School education?  Or would it be more appropriate to say you are a credit in spite of a Louisiana High School education?

In any event, I do so agree with Zach, and this former DI employee, and not just philosophical grounds.  All of the evidence supports everything they have said.  The Wedge Strategy Document clearly shows the religious purpose guiding the DI.  They use of tactics like "Teach the Controversy" and "Academic Freedom" campaigns are well documented.  So it doesn't look like I am falling into that philosophical trap because unlike folks like 'marksman11' and kennie ham, evidence trumps superstition!

Now the DI has written about Zach many, many times, mostly by one of their shills, davey klinghoffer.  In fact just this past May davey once wrote a post that was an 'Open Letter to Zach's parents'.  In it he pretty much whined about their son being used by the apparently nefarious  'Darwin Lobby' and Zach's apparent refusal to allow the DI to 'educate' him.  Klingy closed with this:

"My suggestion? Have a talk with your son about his education, and about an unfortunate reality of the world, that zealots with a political agenda will try to use an enthusiastic person like himself to their own ends, which may not include a high regard for truth telling. If I were his father, I would want to see my boy buckle down, get his degree, prepare for a career, do something useful with his life, and something honorable."

I feel this was a pretty low point in klingy's career as a DI shill, but I am sure he'll stoop to lower tactics eventually, if he hasn't already.  Obviously Zach has been getting under their skin pretty regularly.  They've written about him over 20 times in the past couple of years.  I don't know if his parents ever saw this particular piece of trash, but I would be curious if they had any sort of reaction.  Back in 2011 Zach's father did have this to say:

"Asked about his son's political initiative, Kopplin called his eldest child "smart, courageous and relentless."

"Every 17-year-old, you know, they are quite independent thinkers," he said. "I'm extraordinarily proud of him. He's a strong-willed young man, and I'm proud of him." (For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair)

If Zach was a son of mine I would be proud of him on many levels.  First of all he is standing up for what he believes in, he's supporting actual science and science education, and he's not allowing the marketing efforts of the DI from succeeding in their pseudo-science attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. 

The fun part will be seeing what kind of response Zach gets from the Discovery Institute.  Will they ignore it or will they play the 'disgruntled employee' card?  I wonder if any other former employees will come forward, or does their employment contract prohibit them from saying anything, sort of a Creationism Omerta clause?  We shall see!

What if people stopped believing in Darwin?

Ann Gauger, you know the lady with the non-existent lab over at the Biologic Institute, posted something totally ridiculous:  "What If People Stopped Believing in Darwin?"

First the obvious, people do not 'believe' in Darwin, any more than they 'believe' in gravity.  What people do is accept the explanations from real scientists when it comes to explaining phenomena like Evolution and Gravity.  There is a world of difference between belief and acceptance of an explanation.  I do understand why Ann, and her cohorts at the Discovery Institute, have trouble understanding the difference, they demand faith with no supporting evidence.  But that's the obvious critique.  Let's have some fun.

First off, let us remember who Ann works for, the Biologics Institute, which is the pet apologetic 'lab' of the Discovery Institute (DI).  When you factor that in, you know she's not talking about evolution being out of the picture, but her religious alternative being the only game in town.   That being said, it certainly changes the picture, because everyone knows how open-minded and accepting theists can be, right?

One of her comments was a real corker:

"Biology students might feel free to express their opinions on origins."

Since when does having a religious explanation for anything make people feel free to express their opinions?  Annie's point is that because of Darwin students don't feel free to offer their opinion.  Of course that's not the whole truth, because I have yet to be in a classroom where student's didn't raise their opinion.  One of my students read this blog and wanted to discuss in class -- and I teach Information Technology!  What I think Ann means is that theists do not feel free to raise their non-scientific objections to evolution in science class.  If Ann had said that I would heartily agree.  Raising a religious objection to actual science IN science class is a waste of time and deserves to be shut down.  I did shut down my student by explaining that Life's Origins aren't an appropriate topic during Java Programming.  When he persisted, I invited him to comment on the blog or discuss it after class.  He chickened out and did neither.  But that's the point, Creationism is not science and other than a brief historical perspective, doesn't belong in science class.

Let me give you a for-instance.  Suppose you are a member of a church-going family who for years went to the same church as many of your neighbors, you are involved in church activities, and lived in the area and raised your family there.  Then you get more than a little annoyed when a cross gets burned in your son's arm by his science teacher and you dare to question it.  Not only that, but you learn that the 'science' teacher in question isn't teaching science, but his very evangelical view of science.  You have the audacity to complain.  What happens?

Well according to Ann, you should have been welcomed, your opinions and questioning should be encouraged, and all Christians are nothing but polite and accepting people, right?

However the reality seems a bit different, as an article about the family who dared raise questions about John Freshwater in Mt Vernon Oh:

"We've gotten phone calls, things in the mail, anonymous letters. They send scriptures and how you should raise your children, implying we're not raising our children correctly. Everywhere we go I feel like people know it's us so they don't talk to us or they will say things. Even in church." Eventually it was too much for the Dennis family. They moved 35 miles away."

This isn't an isolated instance, do you recall the Dover Trial, or shall we call it by it's usual name:  "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al".  What happened to Tammy Kitzmiller and her family?  More examples of welcoming, openness, and acceptance?  No, she and her daughters received hate mail, accusations of being atheists, her children confronted, confrontations in restaurants and in the street.

Sure, religion does nothing but open people's minds and hearts! Maybe other religions do, but apparently not Christianity. In a review of Lauri Lebo's excellent book "Devil in Dover" from the Aetiology blog:

" . . .that even most of the biology teachers at Dover were church-going Christians, yet they were ostracized and bad-mouthed by those supporting the school board’s anti-evolution stance–rejected and slandered by Christians who seemingly had no problem attacking fellow believers."

I have to repeat this phrase:  " . . .no problem attacking fellow believers".  Sure, Ann, dismissing Darwin makes everything sunny and bright.  Really?  As you can see I find it hard to believe that if somehow Darwin disappeared overnight, so much would change for the better.  Look at all the people living under repressive religious regimes.  Are you going to tell me Christianity would be different?  Was it in the past?  Tell me when?  Show me an example!

More from Ann:

"The world would see a new flush of academic freedom."

Since when does religion encourage academic freedom?  Seriously, I am asking.  How many professors and teachers have gotten in trouble for teaching evolution?  Too many to count, like John Scopes, Pamela Hensley, Tom Oord, Gary Scott, Stacy Mendrick . . ..  The impact was directly on them teaching evolution.  They did their job and got in trouble.  People forget that the textbook John Scopes was using included evolution or that Pamela Hensley and Stacy Mendrick were well regarded teachers who were teaching the required elements of their courses.  The list is quite long, and not always at a parochial school, but public schools as well usually due to parental pressure,  So this is how religion improves academic freedom?

Now aside from the marketing campaign by the DI, how many teachers got in trouble for teaching Creationism/ID?  While the DI likes to trot out people like Caroline Coker, John Freshwater, and Guillermo Gonzales, the real story is a little different.  These people were hired to perform a job, usually to teach science.  However they made a personal decision that their religious beliefs precluded them from performing their job.  And when they get held accountable, they whined about religious discrimination and the DI trots them out as victims.  I don't see them as victims.  They took the job under false pretenses -- I see them as liars.  Of course Freshwater did more than just fail in his job, but that's another story.

Now I would like to believe that I wouldn't accept a job that conflicted with my belief set so strongly I couldn't do it.  I would be honest about it rather than say one thing and then perform another.  But that's just me and how I was raised.  I guess that level of honesty isn't needed when you are lying in the cause of your religion.  You could ask kennie ham, but he does the same sort of stuff.


Of course she had to try and drag in 'Academic Freedom', which anyone with a functioning brain knows that's not what the Discovery Institute is interested in.  It's just another tactic to try and wedge their way into the classroom.  Their idea of academic freedom means to be able to teach their religion as if it were science and to remove real science from the classroom.  Don't blame me, it's their stated goal:  to replace science with a more theistic-ally friendly version.  It's again like little kennie ham who's idea of religious freedom is to be free to believe how he wants and force others to believe as he [kennie] wants as well.  Not very open-minded and accepting.

One last thing and then I will go back to ignoring most of annie's posts.  Here final comment:

 "That's why they say scientific revolutions happen one funeral at a time." 

Really, so scientific theories get replaced when the author or supporters die off?  Apparently that hasn't worked for Darwin and the Theory of Evolution at all, has it?  It didn't work for Alfred Wegener, whose theory of Continental Drift didn't get confirmed until 20 or 30 years after his death.  I wonder if she expecting the next generation of scientists to knock Darwin to the curb and instill her organization's pet ideas?  Maybe that does explain why they [the DI, annie, wild bill and the lot], don't bother doing science and only marketing and public relations in their efforts to damage science education.

I wonder where annie expects to next breakthroughs in vaccines, medical treatments, and new technologies to come from?  Divine intervention?  Yea, like that has worked real well so far.  Let's ask Ian, Neil, Matthew, Austin, Amy, Robyn, Andrew, Harrison, Nancy, Dennis, Arrian, Zachery, Troy, Shauntay, and Rhett.  Oh, wait you can't.  They all died because some people, often their theist parents, believed prayer beats out medical care.  Not a great track record.

Not Everything an Academic does is Covered by Academic Freedom

Caught a great Letter to the Editor in the Washington State Journal, "Not every action is 'academic freedom' -- Gary L. Kriewald".  It's saying something I have been saying as well.  You might check it out.  The bottom line is simple, just because someone is an academic, that does not give them carte blanche to do/say anything they want and expect the academic community to rally in their defense.

Recently Sara Youcha Goldrick-Rab, Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, tweeted against Wisconsin's elimination of faculty tenure from state statute.  Now, before we go any further, I have absolutely no issue with her commenting about that subject.  To me, that falls under 'Free Speech' -- which we've discussed before, so I won't get up on my soapbox about free speech and responsibilities.  To be honest, I didn't care for her posts, especially when she compared the governor with Adolf Hitler and discouraged future students from attending the university.  But she has the right to tweet.  But she should also accept the responsibility for what she tweets!

Now, my question is does her actions fall under Academic Freedom?  I say it does not.  If an employee other than an academic had done something like that, they more than likely would have been terminated!  I do not feel that her comments should be cloaked under the guise of academic freedom!  To me that is nothing more than a way for her to avoid taken responsibility for her published communication!  She should be free to offer her opinions, and the University should be free to take the action they feel is appropriate. 

In my opinion her effort to discourage students from attending her university, then she should be making plans to relive herself of what must be an onerous environment and find employment elsewhere.  She should not be able to hide behind the mantle of  'academic freedom' for something unrelated to her curriculum area, but an administrative issue between her and the school. 

To me the issue was compounded by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee when they responded about being "deeply dismayed" by her actions, which they felt had damaged the principle of academic freedom.  In my opinion, by taking the position that they did, the Steering Committee is actually enabling an abuse of Academic Freedom.  What they should have ruled, in my opinion, is that her tweets were not covered under Academic Freedom and she should be help responsible for her communications, like anyone else would have been.

While people, including myself, like to toss around phrases like 'Free Speech' and 'Academic Freedom', everyone should be aware that there are limitations on them and neither of them is a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.  People should be held accountable for their actions, which include tweets, Instagrams, and blog posts.  Now you also know why my name and email is on this blog.  I originally started it with the id of 'tedhohio', and anyone who Googled that would find it pretty easy to find me.  But a couple of years into it, I changed to use my name!  To me it is a form of taking responsibilities for my opinions!

Is this an issue of Academic Freedom?

Just recently University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rescinded a job offer to Steven G. Salaita.  While I understand rescinding a job offer, especially one made after a pretty significant selection process, is pretty rare -- but my issue is whether or not this is a matter of academic freedom.  I'm confused and hope someone can help me out.

First off, I've written about Academic Freedom before and I have always separated the issue from Free Speech.  Professors, in the conduct of their work, do not have free speech.  What they have is the right and, in my mind the responsibility, to present all facets of a subject area, even the controversial ones.  Academic Freedom means the academic organization cannot take negative action when teachers are doing their jobs.  What teachers do not have is the right to bring in unrelated topics into the classroom under the guise of academic freedom.  So, in other words, bringing Intelligent Design/Creationism into the science classroom as science does not fall under academic freedom because ID/Creationism is not science and therefore not in the subject area.  I know the Discovery Institute disagrees with me on that, but then they will use any tactic no matter how dishonest or reprehensible to push their pet ideas.  Remember the DI is the place who defended John Freshwater and failed to defend Chris Comer!  One was fired for not doing his job and one was fired for doing theirs.  Their idea of academic freedom is not the one shared by:

The American Council on Education (ACE) issued a statement endorsed by a pretty impressive list of collegiate organizations. It's called "Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities". Here are a few highlights:

• Colleges and universities should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas.
• Academic decisions, including grades, should be based solely on considerations that are intellectually relevant to the subject matter under consideration.
• The validity of academic ideas, theories, arguments and views should be measured against the intellectual standards of relevant academic and professional disciplines.
• Application of these intellectual standards does not mean that all ideas have equal merit.
• Government’s recognition and respect for the independence of colleges and universities is essential for academic and intellectual excellence.

I posted about this before here. check out the 4th one, all ideas do not have equal merit.  Certainly explains the inequalities between Scientific Theory of Evolution and Religious concept of Intelligent Design/Creationism, doesn't it?

Now Professor Salaita was the associate professor of English at Virginia Tech, he resigned his position to accept a new one, starting this fall, as a tenured professor of American Indian studies at Urbana-Champaign.  So we have basically an English teacher becoming a teacher in American Indian Studies.

After receiving the job offer last year, it did say is still had to be approved by the Board, but it also said that was usually pretty perfunctory.  It became an issue when the professor tweeted some seriously inflammatory comments about Israel and the recent things going on in the Middle East.

Here is my thing.  Is this a matter of academic freedom?  I think not!  I'm not trying to defend or attack Israel or the professor, I'm trying to focus on the actions of the professor and the University.  Professor Salaita has the right, under free speech, to tweet whatever the hell he wants.  The University has the right to hire whoever the hell they want. 

The professor wasn't being hired to teach anything about Israel or the Middle East, so how is this a matter of academic freedom?  To me it's a matter of free speech.  Tweeting, like any form of communication, comes as a right and it also comes with some responsibilities.  You are free to yell 'Fire!' is a crowded theater, but afterwards, you will be held responsible!  There had better have been a fire or you will be help accountable for your actions, including any injuries as a result or even the lost revenue from the theater.  A few years the Dixie Chicks made a few political comments about then-president George Bush at a concert in England.  While I disagreed with their comments, they had the right to make them.  The negative impact to their career is a direct response to their exercising free speech, and accountability.  Now the folks who threatened them and their children I think have serious mental health issues, but that's a different issue.  Was anyone going to tell me I HAD to purchase their music regardless of their political statements?   That if I refused to purchase their music I was violating their rights in some fashion?  Of course not.  But that seems to be what's happening here.

Maybe the underlying question is does a position as a professor of any topic automatically grant you freedom from any level of personal accountability for anything you might say in any forum on any other topic?  Put that way it sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?  But claiming that  Professor Salaita's right of academic freedom has been violated because the University rescinded a job offer because of his exercise of free speech sounds exactly like that!  He is and should be accountable for his tweets, whether the later ripples in the water are to his benefit or detriment.

Does anyone remember when William Dembski was nearly fired?  Back when he was working at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he caused a mild stir when someone realized that he actually suggested that the Bible might be less than historically accurate.  OK, he didn't actually suggest it, he out and out stated in in his book "The End of Christianity".  He went so far as to say Noah's flood was just a Middle-Eastern phenomena and not a global deluge.  He immediately came under fire by his bosses and recants incredibly quickly.  He even came out and said he was wrong!  No relying on 'academic freedom' for him because he knew exactly what was going to happen if he tried that route . . . it's called unemployment, so said Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson (about halfway down the article). 

Should the University be required to hire Professor Salaita ?  Maybe, but not because of academic freedom!  We are getting into a legal issue of acts and actions concerning job offers and offer-ers and who is entitled to what and when.  Complaining about academic freedom is, to me, just foolish smoke!  Be honest, if the University doesn't want to hire him because of his tweets, address the issue as one of free speech, not academic freedom!  If I were to post on Facebook or tweet comments that brought negative publicity to my employer, I would expect to get fired!  If between my acceptance of a job offer and the start of work something came up that would cause a negative reflection on me and my soon-to-be new company, I would expect to see the job offer fade into the dust.  I might not like it and would have potentially legal actions concerning it . . . it wouldn't be an issue of academic freedom!

I wonder if anyone from my current company pays any attention to this blog?  Imagine if the company owners were hard-core Creationists.  Could this blog get me fired?  That might be interesting, but not a fight I would want to get into.  I think as long as this blog didn't detract from me doing my job, my bosses shouldn't have an issue -- just like I shouldn't have an issue of their beliefs.  After all, what does their religious beliefs have to do with my being a computer programmer?  I think that's a lesson Nathaniel Abraham learned a few years back.  Do you remember him?  He was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for refusing to do the job he was hired to do.  He tried the discrimination route to fight it and sued for all sorts of damages because he said his religious beliefs made it impossible to be an evolutionary biologist  . . . maybe he should have tried the 'academic freedom' complaint. 

Am I off base on academic freedom?  Let me know.  You can comment here or even email me direct at tedhohio@gmail.com.

Keep running into Dembski-isms

You know as little respect as most of the ID proponents deserve, I keep running across comments about Dembski's unequivocal surrender.

Over at JREF forums, one commenter, AdMan, put it pretty succinctly:

"Here is one of the key proponents for Intelligent Design, dismissing a point that he earlier had argued was supported by scientific findings simply because he's told that the bible is absolutely trustworthy and he must not question it. And he gives in without an argument. Does ID have any legitimacy left?" [I added the italics for emphasis]

Over on Daylight Atheism it is also said quite plainly:

"But just as fascinating, I think, was Dembski's craven response. When threatened with losing his job, he immediately recanted, despite everything he had said before about how his views were founded on the evidence. He immediately surrendered those views and, in his own words, "bowed to the text" - prostrating himself before the Bible and confessing that he believes it, not because that's what the evidence says, but because that's what's written and he knows he's not permitted to doubt or think independently. Regardless of what the facts say, he knows his beliefs must be subordinated to the cold demands of dogma. Is this not a total abdication of intellectual honesty? " [Again, I added the italics for emphasis]

One of the commenters over on Daylight Atheist had a great comment, one I had to repost:

"With apologies to Monty Python.

Brave Sir Dembski ran away.
("Yes!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I did!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("Yes!")
Yes, brave Sir Dembski turned about
("I did!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking ("I certainly did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all truth!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dembski!
("I did!")"

How in the world can Dembski face any students in the light of such behavior? I do pity any students he has, they deserve better. On the other hand, this isn't all that surprising. Look at the coalition put together by those less-than-stellar folks at the Discovery Institute. There is no interest in actual science, only dogmatic clinging to shreds of various ideologies. Look at a few of the tactics and attacks against evolutionary theory -- completely toothless because of their refusal to step away from philosophy and marketing and engage in science.

• Teach the non-existent controversy
• Academic freedom that has nothing to do with actual academic freedom
• Darwin caused Hitler -- in spite of Hitler's avowed Christianity in his own writings and speeches
• The math -- that no one has the ability to calculate -- doesn't support evolution

All of it pretty much . . . well as the saying goes no matter how much mayo you use, you can't turn chicken sh** into chicken salad. They certainly seem to use a great deal of mayo. They dress up their ideas in ill-fitting lab coats, pay for it with other people's money, publish in the popular and christian press, whine about impossible decades-long and multi-national conspiracies of millions of scientists, and then lie and misrepresent their ideas to school boards at the state and local level. So Dembski sweating over a paying job is not much more than a ripple in a pond loaded with reprehensible tactics and strategies.

It's not that terribly surprising because of the original Wedge Strategy Document:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Intelligent Design is a shill, it's a cover, it's a thin veneer over Creationism and it really doesn't matter in the long run as long as Creationism can find its way back into the secular classroom -- not matter how! Dembski, Meyer, Johnson, Sternberg, and the rest of them will say anything, stoop to any tactic, any device, any potential selling point not because their ideas are correct, but because they believe in them in spite of the evidence that does not support them and the ends they seek justifies the means.

As one of Dembski's students said of his professor's desires

" . . . theology as the "queen of the sciences" . . . "

And that is the real crime.

Settlement reached in Freshwater case!

The second to last part of the Freshwater saga is at an end. John Freshwater is not allowed to brand students! Now if only the judge presiding over the last issue, his administrative hearing on being fired, would issue his ruling we can all start to forget John Freshwater!

If you want a refresher, The Panda's Thumb's Richard Hoppe provided an amazing amount of coverage! Bottom line is John Freshwater was fired for a number of things including assault on students by burning crosses in their arms, lying to investigators, and failing to follow school board policies-- to name a few. Several suits followed, a lot of apparently foolish activity by Freshwater and his attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, and we are nearing the end of the road. Maybe Mt Vernon, OH can also set this behind them -- providing Freshwater is not returning to the classroom.

Here is my issue. John Freshwater might not be burning crosses in any arms, which is a good thing, but is it enough? Does this man who would even think to do such a thing belong in the classroom? He has received a lot of positive attention from many Creationists who keep trying to cast this in a 'religious freedom' light. But the reality is not about religious or even academic freedom. John Freshwater is supposed to be teaching science. Instead of that he assaulted his charges, taught Creationist/intelligent Design against school policy, and then lied about it to investigators. What kind of lesson will this be telling our students if he is allowed to return to the classroom? Plus, since he has settled the other lawsuits most certainly not in his favor, what kind of message will this send to Freshwater if he is allowed back int he classroom? Sure, he might not be burning crosses, but teachers in Mt. Vernon High School will still have to be re-teaching the material supposedly covered by John Freshwater because he wasn't held responsible to failing to teach it.

That is my $.02. He had his chance and he allowed his religious convictions to get in the way of him doing his job. Would you fire a butcher who refused to cut meat for religious reasons? Would you fire an employee who refused to follow the direction of a female supervisor for religious reasons? Would you fire a Pharmacist who refused to give out Birth Control pills for religious reasons? I certainly hope so. And that is why John Freshwater deserves to lose his job. It's not that he couldn't do it, but that he refused to do it and nothing I have read on this hearing has given me any hope that he would suddenly start doing it.

I wonder if the Discovery Institute will have anything to say. So far he's about the only Intelligent Design proponent they haven't offered support. I might have to go back and double check that, but I cannot recall anything supporting Freshwater from luskin, Klinghoffer, or that bunch. If I am wrong, please pass me a link. It might be worth a follow-up post once the final hearing decision is done. Word is that might come down by the end of the year!

Do Teachers Have Free Speech?

I guess the underlying question is does anyone really have 'Free Speech'? Before answering, I want to tell you a story of sorts.

When I was in the USAF, we had what we called 'Free Speech with limitations'. It sounds weird, but think about it. According to the precepts of free speech I should be able to tell my commander to 'pound sand'. The reality is that sure I could do so, but I had to be willing to face the consequences -- which could have included jail time, discharge, fines . . .. So in reality I did not have free speech as a member of the US Military. And it made perfect sense to me -- and still does. While the idea of free speech is fine, you always have to be willing to accept the consequences. Even in the civilian world, you aren't allowed to walk into a theater and yell 'Fire!'. Oh you can do it, but there better be a fire or the consequences of the ensuing panic will fall heavily on your shoulders.

So let's take this argument back to teachers. Do teachers have free speech? Well outside of the classroom they have the same free speech we all share. But I am talking inside the classroom? Do they?

According to John Freshwater, the Mt Vernon Teacher who is central to a long running trial in which he was fired for a variety of things, including teaching Creationism in violation of the district standards. One of his points was that the district’s restrictions on his classroom behavior violated his free speech rights. So at a time when his trial(s) are winding down, the question remains, does a teacher in the performance of their duties have free speech?

Well as reported on one of my favorite blogs, Panda's Thumb, the answer is No! According to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The appellate panel in Cincinnati upheld a lower court’s ruling for the Tipp
City [Ohio] Exempted Village School District, writing that the right to free
speech “does not extend to the in-class speech of teachers in primary and
secondary schools made ‘pursuant to’ their official duties.”"

This ruling and the 'free speech with limitations' makes perfect sense to me. Teachers in primary and secondary schools face an audience who has not learned the detail about any subject to understand enough to actually filter out inappropriate materials. As a result, the impressionable nature of students at that level mean the teachers should not be given free reign to teach anything they want.

This is why there are standards, and why teachers should be held to them -- regardless of any other beliefs or opinions. Noted in the ruling itself

"Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which states that when
government employees speak "pursuant to their official duties," they are "not
speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes."

Again, this makes perfect sense to me. Outside of the classroom a teacher has the same freedom of speech as any other citizen of the US. But inside that classroom, in pursuant to their official duties, a teacher does not and should not! And if they try and assert that they do, they should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. In Mr. Freshman's case, getting fired.

There was a little aside at the end of the ruling:

"The 6th Circuit also ruled that the "academic freedom" concept does not protect
curricular speech at the high-school level, because the notion was conceived and
applied in universities to protect teachers who are also researchers or
scholars."

This one makes me a little concerned. I've discussed 'Academic Freedom' many times in here and I believe that High School teachers should have the same rights as college professors to introduce controversial material -- as long as such material is within the curriculum guidelines set by the school boards. The way this is worded seems to remove that arrow from high school teachers quiver and can be misused to avoid presenting materials simply based on the fact they are controversial. Climate change and Creationism comes to mind. Yes, they are controversial subjects, but Climate Change should be part of every Earth Science class today. Unlike Creationism, which while socially and politically controversial, is not a scientific subject and should not be protected by academic freedom policies at any level. This little addition to the ruling might need a little more thought. Any ideas?