Comments on Quick Takes: Ex-Chancellor Admits Guilt, Attracting International Students, Lobbying on Creationist Degrees, Anger Over Harvard Sale of Property, Support for 'Proof of Concept' Centers, Move in Turkey to End Headscarf Ban

• Praise Gawd! A Solution!
• Posted by Diogenes on January 25, 2008 at 8:05am EST

• Let the Texas flat earthers get their pseudo-science degree in creationism, and only allow them to teach in Turkish schools that continue to demand that women wear the burka. Graduate from the phony program will feel right at home! Two peas in a pod! A perfect match! Meanwhile, in the US, real academics will only teach real science and real students will not remain mired in the late Bronze age.

• Posted by Astonished on January 25, 2008 at 8:40am EST

• There is no room in the academe for name calling. If you don’t share someone’s beliefs, fine. But learned individuals should not stoop to mocking and belittling those with whom we do not agree.

• A spade is a spade
• Posted by Clio on January 25, 2008 at 9:50am EST

• Creationism is not science. Anyone who claims it is deserves to be told that they're an idiot. Anyone who promotes creationism in lieu of genuine science should not have any say in setting educational standards.

• Suffering fools
• Posted by Rick DiFeliciantonio on January 25, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• Quite the contrary, Astonished. It is an important and time honored tradition for "learned individuals" to "mock and belittle" those with superstitous, unsupportable ideas. Dr. Johnson, Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Gertrude Stein, Kurt Vonnegut... I could go on. None of these folks suffered fools.

• Creationism
• Posted by Belief vs Science on January 25, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• Diogenes, you are correct. If academics become timid in this issue, we will be making a great mistake. Religion is based on belief (with no need for proof) while science is based on fact (such as the fossil record). Whenever religious belief enters the realm of science, belief is presented as fact. THAT is the problem.

  Yes, evolution is a theory, but with a lot of substantial proof. If anything, making religious belief follow the same method as employed in science tends to destroy faith rather than bolster it. That, my friend, is why it's called faith. You either have it or you don't. I personally have a strong belief in Jesus Christ, and I do not need a Christian scientist telling me so.

• Agree with Astonished
• Posted by Amy De Rosa on January 25, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• As Astonished points out, the comments by Diogenes are name-calling, and, like all name-calling, such comments are an impediment to dialogue and understanding rather than a bridge.

• Power Play
• Posted by P. Mesner , Professor of Biology at Univ. Wisconsin-Whitewater on January 25, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• The goal of Institute for Creation Research to establish a degree granting program in Science Education based on creationist, anti-evolutionary pseudoscience has nothing to do with science or promoting advancement of human knowledge. This, like all of ICR's efforts, is simply a power play. Part of the religious fundamentalist's ongoing campaign to gain the power necessary to force their particular beliefs on everyone else. Slowly but surely they are gaining that power. Education has always been their greatest enemy, so the true and deceit-ridden intent of this move should be made clear.

• Posted by fecalito on January 25, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• No place for name calling? Apparently you have never been to a faculty meeting. Of course, a more noble discourse should be on a higher plane (or, in this instance should I say Nobel discourse?). Creationism will fall on its own lack of merit in the free marketplace of ideas.

• Flat earthers?
• Posted by Educated Believer on January 25, 2008 at 10:15am EST

• Please, it is "young Earth," NOT flat earth. A young earth is actually defensible, while a flat earth is just silliness.

• Posted by E. Ponimus , Plenty of room for name calling on January 25, 2008 at 10:15am EST

• There is plenty of room for name calling when individuals trot out fictional drivel and make it the basis of a Masters of Science. Philosopy, perhaps. Theology, definitely. But, science? No, there you are setting yourself up to be labeled as a religious nutjob. At a time when this country is severely lagging in education, dragging us--in an officially accredited manner--back to a time when all things were explained by magic, fear, and superstition is a gravely dangerous action.

• Thank You, Astonished
• Posted by Gary Fitsimmons , Director of Library Services on January 25, 2008 at 10:25am EST

• I agree. I happen to be one of those who disagree with evolutionist theorists. I find it amazing that those whose predecessors used to cry out for tolerance of their viewpoint when it was not considered "mainstream" would forget their history so willingly. If you want to get down to "real" science, you might actually try applying scientific method to evolutionary or creationist theory. I believe that anyone who is objective will find that neither has been sufficiently proven nor disproven by repetition.

• Yes. Well.
• Posted by Prof. Challenger on January 25, 2008 at 11:15am EST

• Diogenes, you're correct that there's a literary tradition of mockery to make a point.
  That said, mockery can be used in an effective, witty way...or it can come across as smarmy and offensive. In these latter cases, it tends to backfire.

• Tremendous Intolerance!
• Posted by GEWood , Department Head on January 25, 2008 at 11:20am EST

• Wow! The level of intolerance among those who contest against creationism is astounding. What is it about the creation account that you fear? Stop the name calling and allow science to speak.

• Posted by Anon on January 25, 2008 at 11:25am EST

• Let the creationists have their degree. Let them be hired by schools and colleges. And let our students fall ever further behind to the rest of the world in their knowledge of science.

• Missed irony here!
• Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountabilty Project on January 25, 2008 at 1:10pm EST

• Most comments reveal a deep ignorance of the conditions in the South.

  Let me explain. I happened to teach a 2 yr level academic course on Hebrew scripture, and was able to present the creationist/evolutionist controversy, including both sides.

  But when I asked how many students had seen the evolution-side of the argument, and NO ONE had! In other words, nothing has changed since the Scopes Trial in 1925.

  That is the missed irony of the ICR student: "The classes I had while there showed me a much more balanced view of science than I ever got at other schools I had attended, one of those being a large university in Ohio. I learned more about evolution at ICR than in any other institutions or courses."

  In fact, at my 2 yr school, I was told that the "E" word was not even mentioned in general biology classes, due to its controvesial nature. Instructors just skipped over that chapter, rather than have students complain to the dean, or worse, the college president.

  This is the reality, folks. This is the actual reality -- for which the various distinctions discussed here are truly irrelevant to the situtation on the ground.

• Science HAS spoken.
• Posted by David , prof emeritus at USC on January 25, 2008 at 1:15pm EST

• Prof. Wood: Science HAS spoken, again and again, about the nonsense of creationism, but the creationists, in their willful dogmatism, ignore the indisputable or else fabricate absurd defenses and continue their religious crusades.

  What does one fear? Why, the continued indoctrination of the young against most everything that I advocate as a teacher, rather than as a preacher posing as one. Well, we'll survive it, as we have survived the pseudo-sciences of Aryanism and seances, but some of the gullible will be hurt by it.

• threat or menace?
• Posted by the Professor of Ignorance on January 25, 2008 at 1:15pm EST

• For most of us who are expert in biology, in statistical reasoning, or in in logic, a patient, rational examination of Creation Science shows it to be mistaken. In it, quasi-mathematical arguments are put forward that contrive to make it sound very insightful to claim that, in order for things to be as they are, things have to be as they are, and since the odds are so greatly against things being just as they are (compared to all the ways things could have been, but aren't) it just must be a miracle. Never mind that the same great odds militate against every other imaginable and unimaginable possibility.

  This kind of logical weakness in the CS argument is the mere fact of the matter, and if Texas can't handle that reality--if Texas caves in and recognizes this mistake as an acceptable alternative view--that is truly bad news for everyone.

  No name calling is necessary on this point, and Prof. Challenger (I think) is right to point out that such name-calling is potentially counterproductive. But creationists should understand that their position is threatening to the rest of us, not because we're afraid to think it through, but because we have thought it through and it represents a tolerance of irrationality and misinformation, a preference for wish over reality, that we truly ought to fear. In sum, it matters whether the state and the official educational system sanction nonsense or not.

• The string of comments...
• Posted by Tim Lacy on January 25, 2008 at 2:45pm EST

• ...for this post makes me wonder about the virtues of anonymity. Would everyone above say the same thing if they actually had to identify themselves? - TL

• Learning evolution vs learning creationism
• Posted by Diana Relke , professor on January 25, 2008 at 3:00pm EST

• I'm a big science booster--and a science critic--and have devoted much of my teaching career to getting Arts students interested in science, even eager to fulfill their obligatory 6 credit units of science. So I've heard lots of stories about how excruciatingly dull biology classes in high school can really turn a student off, and how Biology 101 works better than any sleeping pill on the market. I'm imagining that creationism, by contrast, is preferable, since it's easy to present it as a simple and exciting way to think about human origins.

  I'm not suggesting that biologists try to compete by dumbing down biology, but I find that film documentaries (e.g., NOVA) really help to get students over their fear and loathing.

  There must be a better way of breaking down that long-established arrogance in the sciences that science is so important that it's up to us lesser mortals to put in all the effort to learn it, since scientists cannot be expected to stoop to making science accessible.

  More important, this is not just an issue for biologists. The entire university has to assume responsibility for the creationist assault on the evolutionary sciences. For an anti-intellectual assault on one discipline is an assault on all of them. Besides, science does not belong to scientists. It belongs to all of us, and we all--faculty and students--have a responsibility to be educated in it and informed about current science issues. The issue of evolution vs creation cannot continue to be argued from the same old binary position.

  So, my question is, how can the non-science disciplines help?

• Teaching evolution
• Posted by bgn on January 25, 2008 at 3:50pm EST

• I was one of those liberal arts students who was bored by high-school biology and never took a science course in college. However, in the last twenty years, thanks to all the excellent popular writers on evolution from Stephen Jay Gould on down, I've come to greatly regret my boredom. I suspect that if solidly based evolutionary theory & history were put front & center in biology surveys, many non-scientifically minded students like me would be at least as excited by the subject matter as we can be with merely human history. And creation "science" would be of exactly as much help in such an effort as Holocaust-denial revisionist "history" would be in bringing 20th-century history to a general audience--that is, none whatsoever.

• breaking down disciplines
• Posted by David Eggenschwiler , Professor emeritus (sort of) at Univ. of Southern Calif. on January 25, 2008 at 5:30pm EST

• How can other disciplines help to get students interested in science? By breaking down disciplinary borders. There are terrific scientists, including Nobels, who have written for general audiences, and they can interestingly be incorporated into broad courses of critical inquery. I just taught a course on writings in the sciences, history, and literature that excited me and included students from the sciences and otherf disciplines. Some of the science majors said, "why aren't we taught this stuff in our science courses?"

  Furthermore, Bio 101 at Princeton is team-taught by a Nobel winner and a MacArthur winner, and it is not dull, any more than Freyman's Physics 101 was at Cal Tech. Science is exciting and should be shown to be so. (I am an English professor and a true believer in the imaginative power of science.)

• Will Someone Please Tell Me
• Posted by Tired Adjunct on January 26, 2008 at 7:35am EST

• I have asked this question before here and have yet to receive an answer. Why are these passionate self-appointed defenders of science missing in action when it comes to string theory? String theory can no more be proven or disproven by scientific method than can creationism. String theory stands on the exact same epistemological footing as creationism. Yet it has no trouble being seriously discussed and taught in physics classes in universities across the land. And this never gives rise to hysterical hand wringing about the immanent death of "real" science. Why? Isn't there something psychological going on here? Religiphobia perhaps?

• Weighing both sides
• Posted by Educated Believer on January 26, 2008 at 7:35am EST

• I wonder what would happen if we taught students how to look at evidence and let them decide what makes sense and what does not, instead of telling them what to think. If Creation Science is really such bad science, wouldn't students recognize that if they were taught the processes and methods of scientific inquiry, instead of what they should think and what is "dangerous" for them to think?

• Posted by Raymond Frey , Professor of History at Centenary College, NJ on January 26, 2008 at 11:30am EST

• In answer to Tim Lacy:

  Let the creationists have their degree. Let them be hired by schools and colleges. And let our students fall ever further behind to the rest of the world in their knowledge of science.

• “Secure Borders and Open Doors"??
• Posted by kgotthardt on January 26, 2008 at 1:50pm EST

• How about opening doors to the people who are already HERE instead of trying to keep them out of higher education? Why not help them become legal citizens recognized for their contribution to the educational community? Or is that just too unpopular and not worth the political effort?

• Posted by kgotthardt on January 26, 2008 at 2:15pm EST

• Educated believer, you're right. Teach all the theories out there. What harm is there in doing so? Are we that afraid of people actually trying to sort ideas out on their own?

  This discussion smacks of "schools of thought." I've never been a fan of using a single "school." It's limiting. And ultimately, it promotes ignorance and closed-mindedness.

  Oh yeah, and I always use my own name. I think everyone should. And if you receive institutional flack as a result, then you have one more opportunity to defend freedom of speech. Don't worry. IHE won't print ANYTHING that can really hurt your career.