ACTA's Must-Reads
« Churchill at De Paul | Main | Protesters tell recruiters to kiss off »
Not so intelligent administrative designs
Yesterday, Cornell University president Hunter Rawlings delivered a state of the university address to hundreds of faculty members and trustees; normally, the address concentrates on institutional achievements and related issues, but Rawlings departed from the template to address a matter of growing national concern: the teaching of intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. Rawlings called the building movement to ensure that intelligent design theory is taught in science classrooms "very dangerous," and described it as "religious belief masquerading as a secular idea." Noting that 42% of Americans presently believe creationism should be taught instead of evolution, Rawlings urged his audience to recognize that the intelligent design controversy "is playing out in school districts, cities, counties and states across the country."
What's also playing out: the assumption that it is acceptable for university presidents and administrators to effectively banish certain lines of inquiry because they find them intellectually repellent. Idaho State president Timothy White recently banned intelligent design from the science classroom; University of Kansas chancellor Bob Hemenway has taken a similar stand. Likewise, Lehigh University's department of biochemistry has posted a notice on its web site officially rejecting the work of Michael Behe, a Lehigh biochemist who has published a book arguing that there is a biochemical basis for intelligent design theory. Behe's belief in academic freedom is such that he supported his department's decision to post the notice. But he is also a tenured professor whose book on intelligent design, Darwin's Black Box, was a bestseller; in other words, he can afford to have his ideas singled out by his employer as wrongheaded and anti-intellectual. One suspects that things will play out differently for people such as Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State whose work on intelligent design spurred the Iowa State faculty to circulate a petition denouncing "efforts to portray intelligent design as science."
Denunciations are not reasoned refutations. Administrative bans on intellectual inquiry do more to chill debate than to foster it, and do considerable damage not only to the ideas being banned, but also to those being protected from challenge or dispute. As Donald Downs, University of Wisconsin political science professor and author of Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus argued in a speech Thursday, "First, all comments can be wrong, therefore they need to be challenged. ... Second, even if the statements are not false, they still need to be challenged in order to keep them vital ... any orthodoxy needs to be challenged or it may become an injustice."
Universities should be actively fostering debate about intelligent design, not seeking to shut down investigation of the idea entirely. And they should be doing this not because intelligent design is right, or even viable--fostering debate about an idea does not mean endorsing that idea--but because it is anti-intellectual and hypocritical of them to do otherwise. Free inquiry exists to test ideas, to allow the weak ones to be exposed as weak and strong ones to prove their strength. Clearly, such a debate is needed in this instance. One might well ask why leaders of major research universities such as Rawlings, White, and Hemenway are reluctant to allow this particular clash of ideas to play out. Do they think students can't think for themselves? Do they think evolutionary theory cannot stand up to the challenge posed by intelligent design? Are they afraid of ideas that attempt to reconcile scientific methods with belief in God? If they are, shouldn't they also be banning the study of Einstein--who argued that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?
Thanks to Maurice Black for drawing my attention to the Einstein quote.
Posted by acta online on October 22, 2005 at October 22, 2005 12:23 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/64
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not so intelligent administrative designs:
» tax return information from tax return information
[Read More]
Tracked on January 21, 2007 01:19 AM
Comments
If science were something everyone voted on, or something in which proof and the concensus of the scientific community had no relevance, then this article would make sense. As it is the article displays either the author's lack of interest in the topic, resulting in a naive conclusion, or the author's interest in promoting creationism in science classrooms. University administrators and science faculty have an obligation to protect science education from the very well fianced extremist campaign to destroy biology education in the US. Science is debated through the scientific method reported in research journals. Nonscientific alternatives promoted by political and religous pressure groups, no matter how many times they repeat that their claims are "scientific", have no business in a science classroom. It will come into responsible science classrooms when it is science, and not before. The invitation to debate creationism (by whatever name its proponents care to give it) in theology, social science, and philosophy classrooms has been out there for decades, but the creationists aren't interested. Neither are they interested in proving their case to the scientific community, and it isn't for lack of money. Instead political pressure is brought to bear on those atheist scientists (and, incidently, most of them aren't) to include instruction in creationism in the science class. ACTA should be taking a lead role in protecting scholarship from political pressure instead of promoting creationist campaign against the scientific method.
Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2005 01:24 PM
I draw ACTA's attention to ID proponent Michael Behe's recent testimony in the Dover, PA, trial in federal district court, where Behe in effect asserted that in order to include ID in high school science classrooms, one must redefine "science" so that (among other pseudo-scientific glop) astrology would be a respectable scientific theory.
I also draw ACTA's attention to the Wedge Document (http://tinyurl.com/4syg8), which lays out the Discovery Institute's strategy for redefining science in some detail. One of its two "Governing Goals" is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
The Intelligent Design movement is profoundly anti-science. It is not in itself a scientific enterprise -- it is scientificially sterile. It is a narrowly sectarian socio-cultural movement that employs pseudo-science as a tactical weapon, not an honest intellectual pursuit. Far from acquiescing to a sort of "any intellectual endeavour is worthy" postmodernist stance, the academy owes it to the society of which it is a part to articulate standards of excellence in inquiry and to clearly identify a movement whose main activity is to purvey fraudulent claims about itself and about tens of thousands of working scientists.
RBH
Posted by: RBH at November 2, 2005 02:14 PM
While RBH's reading of Behe's position is arguable, he does at least get the name correct. It is Michael, not (as in the original post, Mark.
Posted by: JLP at November 4, 2005 11:24 AM
I again see in these pro evolution comments the same old stale character attacks on people like Behe and now Discovery Institute. Please stop drawing the attention way from the issues. The good or bad character of the people or organizations putting forth the ideas does not affect the idea as worthy or not. The ideas and theories stand on their own or they don't. These are low blows in this argument also known a genetic fallacy. For you readers too busy steaming at the ears this is a fallacy or type of argument in which an attempt is made to prove a conclusion false by condemning its source or genesis. Such arguments are fallacious because how an idea originated is irrelevant to its viability.
You guys know that is the truth. You can also stop the ID isn't testable or falsifiable stuff "but by the way several of us have gone ahead and falsified it anyway just to show you" shenanigans. That is so blatantly naive to think that people don't see what's going on.
Come on just take up the challenge and put evolution (Darwinian) in the academic ring with Intelligent Design. As Darwin would likely agree that putting things into the academic light would "allow the weak ones to be exposed as weak and strong ones to prove their strength." Survival of the fittest is the only way to get to the bottom of this.
The world is waiting eagerly to see the Evolution heavyweight champion get in the ring and beat the you know what out of the skinny little ID challenger. Given the huge catalogs of evidence the champ can bring with him into the ring it won't even last one round. Or will it?
Will Behe's irreducible complexity get hit so hard it lands into the second row or will Darwin's own words prove to be to much for the Heavy weight and will a small tap to the chin send him to the mat for the full count. Will the rock solid mountain of pro evolution facts just overwhelm the tiny little ID challenger or will the mountain be exposed as being an illusion made of conjecture and just-so claims that blow away when a small ID breeze comes its way.
Finally save the attacks on my education or background or religion or other such nonsense for the easily persuaded bunch and just tell me the date of the match so I can get some tickets.
Posted by: ET at November 30, 2006 05:50 PM