May 6, 2008

Professors Fight 'Academic Freedom' Bills That Question Science in 4 States

University professors have joined other science advocates to battle so-called “academic freedom” bills under consideration in Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, and Missouri. The bills, along with similar ones that failed to win passage last week in Florida, ask teachers to promote “critical thinking,” especially on topics such as evolution, global warming, and stem-cell research.

The National Center for Science Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution, has tracked the progress of each bill. The Alabama bill would also apply to faculty members at public colleges in the state.

The Panda’s Thumb, a blog for “defenders of the integrity of science,” posted a plea for help last week from Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Ms. Forrest is fighting a pair of bills in the state’s Legislature and asked supporters to contact people they know inside Louisiana to organize resistance.

“We want opposition from inside the state, not outside,” she said. In a set of talking points about one of the Louisiana bills, Ms. Forrest called it a “stealth creationism bill.”

University professors have also helped lead the battles against “academic freedom” bills in other states.

The Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design, supports the passage of the legislation. In a news release it said that many of the bills are modeled on draft legislation developed by the institute. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. It just may be that creationism, intelligent design and evolution are three descriptions of the same thing seen from three limited angles; to wit, three blind men describing an elephant. Neither creationism, intelligent design or Darwinian evolution mentions the effects of time and field relativity and quantum mechanics in their explanations; hence all are highly suspect of inaccurately describing the phenomenon.

   — first marci    May 6, 05:41 PM    #

2. Here we go again. For those who thought that proponents of creationism and Intelligent Design were done trying to snake their way into the science curriculum, think again. Last week, it was Texas. This week, it is Alabama, Michigan, Lousiana, and Missouri. Let us make a stand for rigor, for fact-based assertions, and for free inquiry that doesn’t stop with the Easter Bunny, genies, the Tooth Fairy, or Ms. Cleo’s spot-on astrological predictions.

   — Darren Aversa    May 6, 05:44 PM    #

3. Mr. Parsons: You neglect to mention you wrote the books you are pimping. As for this “Darwinian view” you are so much against: I’m not sure what that is. All I can say is evolutionary theory is very profitable indeed — and thanks to evolution, you aren’t currently poking a stripped twig in a termite mound for your next meal.

   — AliceU    May 6, 05:50 PM    #

4. This is a bad bill to put it mildly. Whilst there are a few contraversies amongst scientists over certain exact details regarding the directiion and mechanics of evolution, evolution itself is not in question amongst those who actually have a clue about this topic. These ignorant state law makers need to keep themselves better informed before they start paasing this sort of nonsense in their respective state senates.

   — Michael    May 7, 01:12 AM    #

5. To legislate “critical thinking” in science courses is of course a specious argument. Critical thinking is one of the bedrock pieces of any science. It’s a given, just as it should be in departments of theology.

   — Wayne K.    May 7, 08:00 AM    #

6. Michael said “ignorant state lawmakers.” Remember that during the May 3rd GOP debate three candidates said they do not believe in evolution (Sen. Brownback, Rep. Tancredo, and Gov. Huckabee). Perhaps it is time for questions like “Do you believe in evolution?” to be brought up at all levels of politics, since it seems that now it is impacting policy decisions.

   — GregS    May 7, 08:29 AM    #

7. In January 2008 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine jointly released “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” which addresses the issues discussed in this article and the commentaries that follow. The book describes how science differs from other ways of knowing, summarizes the latest accumulating evidence for evolution, and makes the case for why non-scientific “alternatives” should not be taught in science courses. Pdf copies of the book and an 8 page summary brochure can be downloaded through a link on the evolution resources webpage of the National Academy of Sciences, http://nationalacademies.org/evolution. You also can request a free printed copy of the book and brochure by going to http://nasonline.org/secbookletrequest, providing your contact information, and entering the code “SEC15” at the bottom of this web page. The National Academy of Sciences will cover shipping costs.

   — Jay    May 7, 09:55 AM    #

8. I seem to recall that the Arkansas legislature once decreed the value of pi to be 3.1 to conform to the value given in biblical writings. I suppose we could seek to adjust mathematical theory to accommodate this nonsense, or adjust the theory of orbital mechanics to put Earth at the center of the universe. To dub something a theory or a science that is clearly neither is simply applying the tactics of political spin to dupe the gullible, hoping to enlist their support in lobbying miscellaneous politicos.

   — CW    May 7, 10:14 AM    #

9. If the bill promotes “critical thinking”, hey great. I can’t see how, using critical thinking, anyone could begin to consider intelligent design is superior in any way, shape, or form to evolution! ID is faith based and therefore outside the realm of critical thinking, unless it is thinking of ways to pass religion off as science. Evolution is the result of 150 years of critical thinking, evidence, and successful predictions.

   — W. Powell    May 7, 10:34 AM    #

10. Critical thinking is necessary at any institution of higher education. Just leave the faith-based critical thinking where it belongs – in courses relating to theology and religious topics. Critical thinking in science does not relate to intelligent design.

    — Al    May 7, 11:12 AM    #

11. Science is based on predictability, verifiability, and falsifiability. I don’t see any of these three tennants appearing in Creationism or Intelligent design.

    — grgarza    May 7, 11:12 AM    #

12. Things happening in a state’s past does not necessarily mean it is the current status. A great number of scientists and science educators in Arkansas are very enlightened and teach to evolution. Do not stereotype based upon past legislatures and former candidates for president, please.

    — Higher Educator in the Natural State of Arkansas    May 7, 01:53 PM    #

13. Perhaps the question that should have been asked of the former contenders for the GOP nomination should have been:
    (1) Do you know what a “theory” is?
    (2) Do you comprehend the meaning of Natural Selection and Darwin ideas?
    (3) Is the difference between science and unquestioned faith clear to you?
    (4) Have you paid attention to nations, past and present, controlled by religious groups.
    (Start with the Middle East and work your way back to the Aztecs)

    — AW    May 7, 05:44 PM    #

14. The Discovery Institute supports the Academic Freedom bills that are surfacing on the basis that “checkpoints” in academia, journals, & the media stop or suppress ideas or “science” that identifies weaknesses in evolutionary theory or provides alternative “theories.” However, when challenged to give examples where such checkpoints have resulted in a K-12 teacher, university professor, or researcher to be fired or not granted tenure, the DI fails to provide credible evidence to support the allegations that the so-called checkpoints are resulting in unjust decisions and covering up flaws in evolutionary theory. Overall, there is no evidence that the academic freedom of teachers is threatened in the states where these bills are emerging.

    — Gerald Skoog    May 11, 05:18 PM    #

15. The Panda’s Thumb blog practices arbitrary censorship of visitors’ comments and therefore should not be authoritatively cited by any authorities, e.g., the general media, scholarly journal articles, and court opinions.

    — Larry Fafarman    May 11, 05:52 PM    #

16. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is by far the best descriptive and predictive tool available in biology. End of story. To teach ID is worse than teaching Lamarckism – ID’s predictions can’t even be disproved because they don’t have any. All of their “heavyweight” intellectual ideas have been dismantled so thoroughly that they haven’t gotten any research going. How the media or some other set of gatekeepers are responsible for the Discovery Institute’s lack of research is quite a stretch when they have $4+ million of annual budget to play with. Lots of media and legal files. They can end all of this with one simple move: Show us the science guys. Show us the science.

    — Peter D Buckland    May 13, 06:53 AM    #

Previous: New Report Highlights Challenges Facing Business Schools Worldwide
Next: Executive-Search Firm Sees a Business in Finding College Athletics Directors