Public university hires leader in intelligent design

As a sidenote, if you still don't see what's wrong with ID just look at this thread. When people promote ID it's claimed to be a scientific theory that competes with evolution. Evolution is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
But as soon as someone criticizes it? Now it's a religious belief and ID critics are infringing on religious freedom.

muttonchop wrote:

As a sidenote, if you still don't see what's wrong with ID just look at this thread. When people promote ID it's claimed to be a scientific theory that competes with evolution. Evolution is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
But as soon as someone criticizes it? Now it's a religious belief and ID critics are infringing on religious freedom.

Who promoted ID? And who said that critics are infringing on religious freedom?

There were some links early on to the Discovery Institute's pamphlet material on the science of Intelligent Design.

KingGorilla wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Whatever though, all I'm saying is that preventing someone from working a job based on their religious beliefs is a dangerous slope.

Like I said initially. Substitute science for history and intelligent design for moon landing denial. Do you maintain the same position?

Like I said initially, is he teaching the curriculum? The person in question is teaching an Astronomy class.

Obviously if your personal viewpoint is opposed to the curriculum you are teaching you're not suitable. Preventing someone from holding a university position unrelated to the minority opinion is bad.

KingGorilla wrote:

There were some links early on to the Discovery Institute's pamphlet material on the science of Intelligent Design.

I'm pretty sure they were for informational purposes.... Linking wasn't endorsing last time I looked!

Duoae wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

As a sidenote, if you still don't see what's wrong with ID just look at this thread. When people promote ID it's claimed to be a scientific theory that competes with evolution. Evolution is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
But as soon as someone criticizes it? Now it's a religious belief and ID critics are infringing on religious freedom.

Who promoted ID? And who said that critics are infringing on religious freedom?

Bandit wasn't promoting it, but he was defending it as a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

bandit0013 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Whatever though, all I'm saying is that preventing someone from working a job based on their religious beliefs is a dangerous slope.

Like I said initially. Substitute science for history and intelligent design for moon landing denial. Do you maintain the same position?

Like I said initially, is he teaching the curriculum? The person in question is teaching an Astronomy class.

Obviously if your personal viewpoint is opposed to the curriculum you are teaching you're not suitable. Preventing someone from holding a university position unrelated to the minority opinion is bad.

I do not think higher scrutiny in the hiring process is so bad. The hiring process it pretty draconian. None more so than in academia. I am merely questioning his curriculum vitae. He wrote a book promoting poorly veiled religion as science. He was recently hired into the science department of a public university. So far as I can tell that gives rise to concerns about separation of church and state as well as his qualifications as a scientist. The University seemed to be of another mindset. But the University should not be shocked if such a hiring decision may have adverse consequences.

Stengah wrote:
Duoae wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

As a sidenote, if you still don't see what's wrong with ID just look at this thread. When people promote ID it's claimed to be a scientific theory that competes with evolution. Evolution is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
But as soon as someone criticizes it? Now it's a religious belief and ID critics are infringing on religious freedom.

Who promoted ID? And who said that critics are infringing on religious freedom?

Bandit wasn't promoting it, but he was defending it as a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

So... it didn't happen?

Duoae wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Duoae wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

As a sidenote, if you still don't see what's wrong with ID just look at this thread. When people promote ID it's claimed to be a scientific theory that competes with evolution. Evolution is just a theory! Teach the controversy!
But as soon as someone criticizes it? Now it's a religious belief and ID critics are infringing on religious freedom.

Who promoted ID? And who said that critics are infringing on religious freedom?

Bandit wasn't promoting it, but he was defending it as a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

So... it didn't happen?

My "just look at this thread" comment was directed more at my second statement. ID is usually promoted as science but as soon as it gets criticized, like in this thread, suddenly it's a religious belief instead.

Yeah, but I think that argument only works when someone within this thread is promoting it as a science and then changes their tune to it being a belief.... I mean, I agree with you on the whole, it just didn't happen here.

[edit]

I thought that this was pertinent!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvLpX...

So what if it was a Christian Scientist (or whomever the branch is that's opposed to using modern medicine) with an MD who was appointed to teach students at a medical school?

I'd find that as concerning as this university appointment.

Farscry wrote:

So what if it was a Christian Scientist (or whomever the branch is that's opposed to using modern medicine) with an MD who was appointed to teach students at a medical school?

I'd find that as concerning as this university appointment.

Without knowing this guy's beliefs inside out I don't know if it's equivalent. Some strands of ID could be amenable to cosmology and astronomy while others are not. If the guy is opposed to modern medicine and yet has managed to get an MD then logically he either [b]isn't[/b] one of those people who believes that or doesn't practice the beliefs despite holding to them philosophically which is effectively the same thing.

Stengah wrote:

If I had to pick between a science department that hires fellows of the Discovery Institute and a science department that doesn't, I'd pick the latter.

That jogged my memory. Does this Discovery Institute have places like this or is that one of those Discovery Channel places? It is right next to the university after all, and this guy is one of their members. The park there does have a few ducks but they don't bother anyone.

plavonica wrote:
Stengah wrote:

If I had to pick between a science department that hires fellows of the Discovery Institute and a science department that doesn't, I'd pick the latter.

That jogged my memory. Does this Discovery Institute have places like this or is that one of those Discovery Channel places? It is right next to the university after all, and this guy is one of their members. The park there does have a few ducks but they don't bother anyone.

Noooope.

plavonica wrote:

Does this Discovery Institute have places like this or is that one of those Discovery Channel places?

No. The Discovery Institute is a non-profit think tank based out of Seattle. They'd view the Discovery Center of Idaho as a hotbed of scientific secularism that was indoctrinating children in the ways of Satan and otherwise contributing to the downfall of society as we know it.

Huh. So this guy who got into trouble and fired from a previous university for teaching his religious beliefs as fact in class, is also linked to the Discovery Institute, gets hired as a teacher by BSU in an highly religious area, right next to a big Discovery Institute "museum". Seems kind of fishy.

Demosthenes wrote:

KingGorilla wrote:

When I read the creationist or ID literature I often see the statement of evolution being compared to a tornado going through a junk yard and then assembling a 747. That is the kind of random that they are talking about. And then a step further that if something is random, then there is no room for control or predictability.

So, from my judgment, evolution and the processes/forces behind evolution is not their version of random.

Where as I'd say that's kind of what evolution does (it is the cosmic imperative, after all ), but not exactly in the time frame of a tornado. *shrugs*

It's important to understand that the "tornado in a junkyard" scenario is proposed precisely because it violates the usual understanding of the functioning of entropy. Evolution, however, does *not* decrease entropy through random action. So this is at it's core not a good understanding of how evolution works. The main misconception is that evolution is a "random" process from top to bottom. It's not. It's highly non-random in the functioning of natural selection, but *reproduction* incorporates randomness to mix genes. (There's also mutation, etc, but they don't play into this part of the argument.)

The idea that natural selection is random is a common Creationist talking point, and it's wrong, no matter whether you're talking long or short time spans.

Likewise, "Irreducible Complexity" is just the God of the Gaps, reworded, and so far, it's been entirely disproven when challenged. Behe has gotten nowhere in 20 years, and no one else has anything like his intellectual heft. Such as it is...

KingGorilla wrote:

So far as I can tell that gives rise to concerns about separation of church and state as well as his qualifications as a scientist.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Your religious views have zero impact on your ability to work for the state.

bandit0013 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So far as I can tell that gives rise to concerns about separation of church and state as well as his qualifications as a scientist.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Your religious views should have zero impact on your ability to work for the state.

FTFY. Many state employees seem to think they don't have to do their job if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Let's not forget that some city clerks have refused to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

Duoae wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So what if it was a Christian Scientist (or whomever the branch is that's opposed to using modern medicine) with an MD who was appointed to teach students at a medical school?

I'd find that as concerning as this university appointment.

Without knowing this guy's beliefs inside out I don't know if it's equivalent. Some strands of ID could be amenable to cosmology and astronomy while others are not. If the guy is opposed to modern medicine and yet has managed to get an MD then logically he either [b]isn't[/b] one of those people who believes that or doesn't practice the beliefs despite holding to them philosophically which is effectively the same thing.

Or received the MD before converting to this religious belief and is now using the MD as a Trojan Horse to get into medical schools and teach doubt about modern medicine into students' minds.

And that's actually a serious possibility; keep in mind I grew up around (and am still regularly exposed to) fairly extremist evangelicals.

Farscry wrote:
Duoae wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So what if it was a Christian Scientist (or whomever the branch is that's opposed to using modern medicine) with an MD who was appointed to teach students at a medical school?

I'd find that as concerning as this university appointment.

Without knowing this guy's beliefs inside out I don't know if it's equivalent. Some strands of ID could be amenable to cosmology and astronomy while others are not. If the guy is opposed to modern medicine and yet has managed to get an MD then logically he either [b]isn't[/b] one of those people who believes that or doesn't practice the beliefs despite holding to them philosophically which is effectively the same thing.

Or received the MD before converting to this religious belief and is now using the MD as a Trojan Horse to get into medical schools and teach doubt about modern medicine into students' minds.

And that's actually a serious possibility; keep in mind I grew up around (and am still regularly exposed to) fairly extremist evangelicals.

I am pretty sure that is the entire mandate behind Falwell's Liberty" University". It is basically a diploma mill for Christian extremists who aim to run for office and tear down the democratic process from the inside.

Shouldn't your MDs have regular re-accreditation exams and case requirements? If a dude changes ou's belief system and is now using the MD to Trojan ouself into a University; this seems like a problem better solved by making sure the person is actually a practicing clinician or experimental scientist, preferably the former. This sort of solution also takes care of MDs who do nothing to update themselves on current practice and knowledge.

If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

Stengah wrote:
If a doude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

FTFY

Dude is universal!

Stengah wrote:
If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I see your link, and raise you http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

Stengah wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I see your link, and raise you http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

As in all things, the best rule of thumb is to just do what you normally do

LarryC does nothing but this, I'm pretty sure.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I see your link, and raise you http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

As in all things, the best rule of thumb is to just do what you normally do

LarryC does nothing but this, I'm pretty sure.

Can't say I've seen Larry use "dude" that often, and the few instances I have seen it's been the gendered usage.

Stengah wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
If a dude changes ou's

Kind of defeated the purpose there.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I see your link, and raise you http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

As in all things, the best rule of thumb is to just do what you normally do

LarryC does nothing but this, I'm pretty sure.

Can't say I've seen Larry use "dude" that often, and the few instances I have seen it's been the gendered usage.

Second result in a search for "LarryC Dude":

LarryC wrote:

BadKen:

She's not just a dude, she's a cool dude. Have I mentioned that she once rode bikes with me all day and cooks a mean steak? She drives well, is really cool with anniv's and birthdays (she just reminds me when I forget - no mind games), and she shares my enthusiasm for LEGOs, gadgets, and gaming!

She tells me she loves me a lot, too. Not that I need the reassurance, mind you, but it's nice to hear. Dude really knows how to take care of, er, me, I guess.

Anyways...

fangblackbone wrote:

Dude is universal!

Am I seeing what you're doing there, or is my lens just dirty?