Declaration of War?
Over on Nobel Intent John Timmer blogs the recent NYAS conference on "Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science", and describes a talk given by Glenn Branch (of the NSCE). Branch had some funny comments on the oh so very insidious IDEA Clubs :) But by far the most interesting part of his talk was focused on the place of apparently requisite self-censorship in biology departments. (Drumrolls please) Timmer concludes his description:
Branch’s final topic was how to handle a situation where a biology department winds up with a creationist as a graduate student. This was both of general interest, as creationists tend to use their degrees as rhetorical weapons, and of personal interest, as I was part of the Berkeley class that produced the noted Discovery Institute fellow Jon Wells. Unfortunately, his conclusion was that there are no easy answers. He did, however, note that graduate departments exist to serve the scientific community by providing qualified individuals to perform research and teaching services. There is no ethical requirement for graduate faculty to be complicit in the training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field.
Our friends at Telic Thoughts ponder over the questions of which standard and criteria are used to define a creationist. Although their points are valid, what’s frightening is this discrimination against creationists, however defined. Whatever happened to our first amendment? Or, as in the Indian caste system, must we leave our "caste" at the doorstep of our laboratories and put the veil on again once we enter the security of our homes? Whatever happened to bringing different viewpoints to a field? Whatever happened to diversity of thought in science? Were religious scientists, philosophers, mathematicians not scientists, philosophers, mathematicians simply because they were religious? Should they have been banned by the "foreguards of science"? Isn’t this blunt discrimination against religious people (creationists)? Mind you, I’m not of that faith either - but exactly what is the point of this ignorant statement? Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t universities abide by the Civil Rights Act? Where are the ACLU defenders - where are they now, are they standing by silently over this infrigment of our first amendment?
Is he proposing that Creationists be excluded because of their religion, or because of their (bad) science? Would a geology department be obligated to accept a flat-earth supporting student?
I suggest that if the student is scientifically weak, then he does not have to be accepted. To consider whether this weakness is due to religious or other reasons would be religious discrimination.
Comment by ivy privy — April 26, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
The question wasn’t about whether weak students ought to be failed (I think that usually happens, anyway?) but whether the hypothetical strong student who might be suspected of “actively harming the field” in the future should be not allowed to graduate.
Most ID students I know are have good science backgrounds, and they definitely don’t have trouble passing evolution class. That is the problem Branch is facing: these are students who you can’t dream up any other reason to fail, and yet if you let them through… maybe they will turn on you and say all those theories you spent hours teaching them are rubbish.
It is an interesting problem. My take on it would be slightly different than Hygds’, I think; maybe I’l post more on it later. But suppose for the sake of the argument that was the status quo. What would this mean for academia as a whole, for the western tradition of universities? Moreover, how would it set biology apart from those fields which don’t need to be propped up by special entrance requirements?
I think even the suggestion of such a policy does show a great deal of weakness on the evolution side though. If they were more sure of themsleves they’d be willing to stick to a traditional scientific war of ideas. What does it mean if you’re required to give a pledge of allegiance to a particular idea to be allowed to study science?
Comment by Freawaru — April 26, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
Moreover, how would it set biology apart from those fields which don’t need to be propped up by special entrance requirements?
This would be remedied later as the Wedge Strategy proceeded to subvert physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, etc. Biology would no longer be apart from the other scientific fields under attack.
Comment by ivy privy — April 27, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
I did an advanced google scholar search for scholarly publications for “Intelligent Design” and “evolution in Biology, Life Sciences, and Environmental Science categories in 2005-2006. The score:
ID: 37 (none favorable to ID that I saw)
Evo: about 14,440
Further, where’re those empirical observations of Design, or testable hypotheses based on Design?
Ok, ok, I’m trying to be nice here, but really, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you say outright fraudulent things like
I mean, just look at the list of books written by promient IDers - is there even one that’s based on good science? Not that I’ve seen.Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Sorry for making it so difficult… not intentionally :)
How is it fradulent? I am perfectly sincere. But I can’t see the connection you appear to draw between your side showing weakness by abandoning the traditional rules of academia and the number of good books published by ID people, since my claim was not that our ideas are better.
Look, if we all are so stupid that we can’t succed in a field like biology, so be it. There are lots of bad ideas that have come and gone; and generally, the side that is right usually wins out. But doesn’t it strike you a bit odd that respected people in a non-communist country would talk seriously in the way Branch seems to have?
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Dan–
So do you think it is perfectly alright, or is it the lesser of two evils?
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Do I think that *it* is perfectly alright? What do you mean by *it*, exactly?
If by “it”, you mean Branch’s comments, then yes, it’s perfectly ok to “discriminate” against creationists if their views interfere with their ability to do their job. To paraphrase another commenter here on your blog from several days ago (I think it was PvM), should give a PhD in geology to an avowed Flat-Earther? No, of course not. And neither should you give a PhD in biology to a Young-Earth Creationist.
Just look at this recent discussion of a YEC-med student over on Respectful Insolence. If for some reason she does get her M.D., I would worry for her patients - I certainly would not chose to be among them.
Basically, the whole First Ammendment case is, in this situation, a non sequitur - this person is not being charged with a crime, and his or her freedom is not jeopardized, this is just her job that is being discussed. And in our society, the Right to a Job does not exist - you have to earn it, be qualified and competent, and obey the contract that you have with your employer - and consequences do exist if your belief-based actions impair your competency.
Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Probably “it” could be best summarized as “a refusal to grant an academic degree based entirely on someone’s beliefs”
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
But you have an interesting perspective. How far would you take it? Would you grant masters degrees in biology to people who “knew all the right stuff” and could pass any exam in the subject, but happened to be YECs? What about bachelors degrees?
And degrees in other scientific fields?– if you have a Ph.D. in physics you’re more of a threat to evolutionary biology then if you never had been allowed to get a highschool diploma, so should universities stop giving science degrees to YEC students altogether, and tell them to go major in theology?
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
I’m sorry, but how exactly does your understanding of biology (or lack thereof) impact your ability to, say, build a rocket? Your views of biology are completely irrelevant if you don’t study or teach them.
Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
So in spite of their lapses in logical reasoning YEC students are allowed to get degrees in other sciences, just not biology?
Your comment on other biology degrees wasn’t very straightforward. I understand your reasons, but are you saying that YEC students shouldn’t be given bachelor degrees in biology, or just not masters; or just not Ph.Ds?
Twenty years or so ago someone suggested that YEC students should be failed in their college biology classes if a professor happened to find out about their beliefs and they didn’t recant. Do you agree with him on this?
Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
With Bachelor’s degrees, the education you receive is more about what you know - your ability to pass tests and get reasonable grades, I would say. That’s a vague answer, admittedly, but bascially, if you can pass the tests you should be able to get a Bachelor’s (I would think, anyway).
Master’s and Doctorate degrees, however, are far less associated with your ability to pass a test (by then a student should be quite capable of passing such tests), and more about your ability to apply or teach the information. If what a student’s competency to apply or teach biology is hampered by his or her beliefs, then yes, the student’s qualifications for the biology degree is called into question.
No, I’m not suggesting that a student (even a PhD candidate in the relevant field) should be failed or kicked out because of their beliefs, I’m suggesting that that should happen if their beliefs interfered with their competency.Comment by Dan — April 27, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
The assumption of design is already pervasive in biology and this will be more so as systems biology becomes the dominant paradigm. The assuption a system has a design is the starting point in systems biology. Not only is there an assumption the system has a design, but that design is assumed to be eventually describable in metaphors familiar to engineers.
Whether the design has an intelligent origin is what is debated, but the assumption of a design is the starting point. The fact that systems biology uses teleological language is so distressing to the anti-design crowd some have raised a call to arms to stop the spread of teleological language:
Regarding the PhD’s in biology graduating, I’m very concerned because 1/4 to 1/3 of freshman biology students are now pro-ID, and if there is even a marginal correlation between the freshman class to biology PhD candidates in the next several years, degree denial might be what the status quo feels they need to resort to in order to maintain power.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 28, 2006 @ 6:18 am
It does? I’m sure that systems biologists let slip the word “design,” but nowhere does any credible biologist assume that this is because of divine intervention - it’s a result of natural selection time and time again.
It’s you, and the rest of the ID movement, that’s leaving this convenient fact out. By confusing descriptions of structure & function, natural selection, etc., you’re doing an excellent job of re-framing the discussion - hence the ID “propaganda.”
Nonsense. This is about competent understanding and application of the knowledge gained by rigorously studying the evidence. If you can’t defend your theories on scientific grounds, which ID can’t, then you’re a bad scientist.Make excuses about fairness all you want, but until you start showing equal preference to astronomers convinced that the Earth is the center of the Universe, or YEC’s into geology, or tribal shamans into med school, you’re arguments of “fairness” will remain a joke.
Comment by Dan — April 28, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Hi, stumbled across this - as the author of the report in question, i felt i should clarify something: in no way was Branch suggesting that faculty should actively block someone from graduating. But at the same time, they don’t have to actively help them graduate - there is no requirement to serve on thesis committees, etc. for all students. Apparently, my phrasing was not clear, as this is being viewed as branch advocating a witch hunt in various locations, which was not his intent.
Comment by John Timmer — April 29, 2006 @ 12:33 am
Oh, Mr. Timmer, are you suggesting that IDers are misrepresenting more than just science?
The shock! The awe! The amazement!
Not!
I can’t help but notice that each thread here, after being thoroughly refuted by people who know what they’re talking about, are no longer commented on by the Cornell IDEA club folk.
Presumably they dive to the circle-jerking comfort of their listserv.
Comment by Don Baccus — April 29, 2006 @ 3:48 am
John Timmer–
Thanks for the new information; it does clarify thiings.
Comment by Freawaru — April 29, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Don–
Of all things! We happen to be students, and don’t have all the time in the world to go back to old threads and see who commented on things. It is a huge stretch of the imagination that we don’t answer something because we feel it’s been “thoroughly refuted”.
We appreciate all you people coming by our site, but that doesn’t mean we always have time to respond to you. Especially during the next few weeks, when we take our finals. It is unfortunate, sure, but that is how it is; science students at Cornell simply don’t have much time. And the blog is somewhere way down in the list of priorities.
Sometimes, it is true, we reach the conclusion that the particular people commenting on one thread or other are immune to logic, and feel less inclined than otherwise to answer them, but that isn’t the case in many situations– some of you do present your side logically; and those times our responses are strictly limited by Cornell’s most limited resource– time.
As a side-note, just because it looked so funny to have you say it, our listserve is not “circle-jerking comfort”, but generally hosts arguments considerably more intense than those here. Some of our best posters are evolutionists, and no-one hesitates to say what they think..
But back to the blog– I’m afraid you’ll have to think of it as that we provide the forum, but not always the arguments. We do plenty of arguing every day on our own campus, and when we get in from classes and labs our first action might not necessarily be to go to the website and see which random people felt like arguing more. We will come by when we can, but other things– like homework– come first.
Comment by Freawaru — April 29, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
ID De-bunking of the week
On related ID nonsense, I saw this at Hit and Run, which made me think of a recent discussion over at The Design Paradigm, where I made the case that a young earth creationist is incompetent to be a biologist, medical practitioner, ecologist, or geol…
Trackback by A Concerned Scientist — May 5, 2006 @ 9:26 pm