Comments on Quick Takes: Taking Visas to Gaza, Science Blogger Under Attack, Bible Prof Could Be Fired, J-School Abroad, Albright Drops SAT

• Extinction is good!
• Posted by Skeptic on July 11, 2008 at 8:50am EDT

• What most disturbs me about the "Bible Prof." story is that this institution of "higher learning" requires its faculty "to pledge they will not "inculcate, teach or insinuate anything" contrary to the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, the core creed of the Presbyterian faith. That lengthy creed begins by proclaiming the "infallible truth" and "entire perfection" of Holy Scripture, whose sole author is God." (See Philadelphia Inquirer article)

  Any entity that so vehemently rejects honest investigation in favor of dogma, thus demonstrating its deep intellectual dishonesty is undeserving of any association with "higher education". It's high time that such institutions be publically "outed" so that their intellectually destructive and maladaptive behaviors will speed their extinction.

• Comestible Jesus
• Posted by fossil on July 11, 2008 at 9:05am EDT

• The contretemps stirred up by P.Z. Myers's blog on cracker-napping (aka Abstraction of the Host) reminds us of some lingering, quite unpleasant truths about this culture. Catholics, of course, have the right to believe whatever myths they prefer. But to insist that a university punish a student for mocking their absurdities is arrogant beyond belief. If the hierarchy wants to maintain the doctrine of transsubstantiation, nobody's going to stop them. But it passes from the ridiculous to the truly dangerous when they appeal to civil or even university bureaucracies to vindicate a dogma that is every bit as screwy as anything propounded by militant Islamists! We're not very far from the hysteria that greeted "The Satanic Verses" or the fanaticism that killed Theo van Gogh. Just as much as Moslems, Catholics (and proponents of any other supernatural religion) have to realize that defending the peculiar quirks of their special creed is their own lookout. Trying to summon the wrath of the authorities on behalf of their medieval twaddle puts them on the same plane as Osama bin Ladin or the men who murder their own daughters in obedience to a ridiculous notion of patriarchal honor.

• Hey, Skeptic!
• Posted by G. Fitsimmons on July 11, 2008 at 10:00am EDT

• It sounds to me as if you are pretty dogmatic about what constitutes higher education! A seminary exists to train those who lead others in the faith. They have a perfectly legitimate right to specify what constitutes that faith for their denomination.

• Let's think logically
• Posted by alp on July 11, 2008 at 11:20am EDT

• The seminary requiring that its professors support a common, fundamental doctrine such as authority of scripture (and how that is defined by institution) is not only understandable, but it is necessary. It is no different than a university department of evolutionary biology requiring that its professors support the theory of evolution as a foundational truth to their study of the development of life.

  Can you imagine a professor in that evolutionary biology department publishing a paper on cell mitosis, and suggesting that a creator made the cell just so, explaining how this process could not be a result of evolutionary development. Not only would the professor come under severe scrutiny, but the university would, by association, be accused of supporting creation theory to some degree in its evolutionary biology department.

  In order for there to be a productive dialogue on issues -- on any issue -- we must mutually agree on a set of assumptions about the topic (whether consciously or subconsciously). In an evolutionary biology department, you begin with the assumption that evolution theory (as defined historically and/or by the institution) is true. In a seminary -- at least at Westminster -- you begin with the assumption that the Bible is authoritative (as tradition and/or the seminary has defined it).

  Is there a place to question the authority of the Bible? Yes. Is there a place to question the theory of evolution? Yes. But the foundational assumptions mutually agreed upon by people within an organization define the organization itself, and those assumptions are an appropriate benchmark by which members of that organization can/should be measured. When a professor publically questions the validity of evolution, he/she necessarily distances himself/herself from the organization for which belief in evolution is a benchmark.

  You may not hold the same assumptions as Westminster (and you may think their assumptions are rediculous), but you can not accuse them of holding too high or too narrow a standard without also accusing nearly every other organization in existance... including your own.

• Dropping SAT
• Posted by Mark Montgomery on July 11, 2008 at 12:05pm EDT

• It's good to see more and more colleges dropping the standardized tests for admission. While these tests help compare apples to apples, the problem is that the "achievement gap" among rich and poor students means that wealthy kids usually score better than poorer ones.

  Further, average or poor scores may discourage some kids from applying to college--when in fact their secondary record would indicate that they could perform successfully.

  Not all colleges will drop the tests. But it's nice to see that some colleges are brave enough to do without them.

• Hey G. Fitsimmons & alp!
• Posted by Skeptic on July 11, 2008 at 2:55pm EDT

• The difference between the "assumptions" upon which evolutionary biology and religion are based is that science is based on EVIDENCE not mere belief. If the right to "specify what constitutes that faith" is confused with --or worse replaces-- real education about ideas with bases in demonstrable fact, then the only possible dialogue remaining is between those who are rational and those who are not.

• Professor Myers
• Posted by Francis Beckwith , Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University on July 12, 2008 at 5:30am EDT

• I agree with the poster above that Professor Myers should not be punished by his employer for what he said. Because he teaches at a state institution, Professor Myers has many protections at his disposal that insure and secure his academic freedom, which I wholeheartedly support. Having that however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those citizens who are drawing public attention to Professor Myers'imprudent and thoughtless comments. If, for example, I were to insult a colleague's mother by suggesting that he has had intimate relations with her, I should not be shocked if he were to punch me in the nose or not invite me to the faculty party he is hosting at his home.

  Civil society requires that we treat others with respect, and that means that if we find their beliefs unreasonable, we should offer our arguments against those beliefs in a winsome and attractive way. When it comes to Catholic theology, we are talking about a complicated, rich, and sophisticated theological and philosophical tradition that has wrestled with a whole array of challenges, concepts and ideas during its two millenia. It stands to reason then that detractors such as Professor Myers have an obligation to study what they reject with the depth and diligence such a tradition demands of a truly curious and probing mind. "It's Frackin' Cracker" is not the prose of an adult. It is the ramblings of what G. K. Chesterton said of the atheist, "who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."

• Myers
• Posted by Teresa on July 12, 2008 at 7:30pm EDT

• One of the important things to remember about the internet is that it is very easy to say things like "Wow, you wouldn't believe the hate mail I'm getting" or to point out all the stupid comments from religious ass-hats RIGHT HERE ON MY BLOG, when in fact, it's all made up. When in fact, because no one asks you to actually produce the hate mail in any type of concrete form backed up by evidence that the mail actually came from any real people and the fact that anyone can post a comment at your blog saying anything and pretending to be anyone...that gives us ample reason to throw pounds of salt around when anyone sniffs about the attacks they're under or the ignorant opposing comments they're receiving.

  For, in fact, who knows where the comments are coming from? Who knows if commenters claiming to be outraged Christians are actually that? Who knows what reasonable comments from Christians are being deleted?

  Why should anyone trust that anything about this - including the specific comments in the blog conversation - is authentic?