The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The South Carolina Enemies List

Posted 8 March 2006 by Steve Reuland

The anti-evolution crusade in South Carolina, led by the Discovery Institute, continues unabated. There is not much new to report -- the Educational Oversight Committee (EOC) has voted to reject, yet again, the curriculum standards that don't include the pro-ID "critical analysis" language. But the EOC has no power to change the standards. Only the Board of Education, which meets today, can do that. So it gets kicked back to them, and they'll have to submit another round of standards for EOC approval. Round and round we go. But the rhetoric and nonsense keep heating up. Sunday's Charleston Post and Courier carried a front page article which starts out as follows:

In January, state Sen. Mike Fair desperately needed a pair of speakers to challenge the theory of evolution. The Greenville Republican and Education Oversight Committee member lost the two South Carolina university professors he had lined up for a debate with state science educators after one of his speakers began receiving job threats for agreeing to participate. The topic of the debate was the proposed injection of language favoring "critical analysis" of evolutionary theory into guidelines or standards used for sophomore biology lessons. So he turned to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, for help.

The article goes on to describe the Discovery Institute and its shenanigans -- it's a pretty good article actually. Among other things, we get to learn that South Carolina is now considered a "main focus" of the Discovery Institute, as if we didn't have enough problems, and that U.S. Senator Jim DeMint's office was being less than truthful when it said that DeMint had "little familiarity" with the Discovery Institute. (The fact that he gave the opening speech at a DI-sponsored event kind of gave it away). But it's that peculiar allegation by Mike Fair, reprinted without skepticism, that I want to talk about. Fair's claim that there were two SC professors who had to back out because one of them received job threats has the virtue, like ID itself, of being impossible to verify or refute. The fact of the matter is, Fair brought this up well after he had his anti-evolution speakers appear in front of the Academic Standards and Assessments Subcommittee of the EOC (see here and here for background). Those speakers were Richard von Sternberg and Rebecca Keller, who were suggested to Fair by the Discovery Institute. Fair took some amount of heat due to his use of out-of-state personae to represent the anti-evolution cause, while the two pro-science speakers who the EOC lined-up (Karen Stratton and Mary Lang Edwards) were both in-state. But Fair didn't see fit to mention until a subsequent meeting that he had originally picked two in-state professors who apparently backed out at the last minute -- this being, according to Fair's sob story, because one or both of them received job threats. This is very strange, because Fair steadfastly refused to say who his picks were -- not even the other EOC members knew -- until it was revealed at the last hour that they would be von Sternberg and Keller. Whoever these two SC professors that supposedly backed-out were, no one knew their identities then, and no one knows their identities now. How could either one of them received job threats when they remained anonymous? Okay, so color me skeptical. Fair's story doesn't add up. But I happen to know for a fact that there are people whose jobs have been threatened over this. And it isn't Fair or his allies. It's hard working college professors whose only crime is standing up to Fair and the Discovery Institute. Several weeks ago, Rob Dillon, a professor at the College of Charleston, received a carbon copy of an email sent by the dean in response to a message from a senior Vice President of the College (the original was not sent to Dr. Dillon). Rob is the president of South Carolinians for Science Education, a newly formed organization similar to those in other states dedicated to resisting creationist assaults on science education. As such, Rob finds himself attending EOC meetings, speaking his mind during public hearings, and other thankless tasks that any citizen of our state has a right (and a duty) to do. Or do they? I reproduce the contents of the original email below in full:

MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Elise Jorgens Dean Norine Noonan FROM: Frederick W. Daniels I received a call from a good friend of the College who asked that I bring to the attention of the "appropriate people" a recent event at the Education Oversight Committee Hearings in Columbia. It is reported that a faculty member, Dr. Robert Dillon, attended the meetings and his behavior was both "inappropriate and disruptive to the hearings." The person who called quotes a member of the committee as saying Professor Dillon "showed a lack of respect and lack of decorum in disrupting a public meeting." He further argues such behavior makes securing funding for the new Science Center considerably more difficult. Dr. Dillon was part of a group of people who interrupted the meeting. He identified himself and the fact that he is a faculty member at the College. This is another point the caller described as unnecessary. Dr. Dillon was acting as a private citizen, but he is remembered as a member of the College faculty. FWD/blc cc: President Higdon

Needless to say, Dr. Dillon didn't disrupt anything. According to several others who were present, he didn't say a word during the whole meeting, and it wasn't until afterwards when reporters started interviewing people that he began talking. This message is not intended to fix any actual problem, it is a blatant act of intimidation -- a threat if you will -- designed to keep Dillon from showing up at public meetings and voicing his dissent. And not only did this "good friend of the College" single out Dillon for attack, he saw fit to threaten the funding for the entire College of Charleston. Some friend! As a former student of Rob's and an alumnus of the College of Charleston, I find this behavior too despicable for words. Things get worse. Remember how one of Fair's supposed SC professors had his or her job threatened? Well, that particular story may be apocryphal, but one of the individuals who testified in front of the EOC did have her job threatened. That person would be Mary Lang Edwards of Erskine College, who testified against Fair's anti-evolution proposal. After her EOC testimony, and after having written two guest editorials that appeared in The Greenville News and The State, numerous emails and phone calls were made to Dean of Erskine College calling for her termination. Not just to the Dean, but also to the President. And to the Board of Trustees. And to the Chair of the Faculty... Dr. Dillon and Dr. Edwards are not alone. There have been similar cases I am aware of but am not privy to the details. The good news is, neither Dr. Dillon nor Dr. Edwards are in any jeopardy of losing their jobs. Their respective Deans and other colleagues stand by them. It is very rare for a professor to get fired merely for saying something controversial, to say nothing of when one merely stands up for good science supported by the overwhelming majority of biologists. And of course it's also why Mike Fair's allegations are as hard to believe as they are. Even if his pro-ID professors existed, no one I know in my admittedly limited academic experience would want them fired simply for supporting ID (or just some generic flavor of anti-evolutionism), assuming they did their jobs competently. Of course that doesn't mean we have to agree with them, or even take them seriously. As the Discovery Institute keeps saying, with a complete lack of sincerity, challenging your peers is what academic freedom is all about. But the minute someone challenges one of them, their immediate reaction is to scream persecution, file a nuisance lawsuit, or to submit a discrimination complaint. This is what you do when you can't handle being criticized. Making such frivolous claims of persecution, as Discovery Institute constantly does, is nothing more than a crude smear-job against the scientific community. But threatening one's job, or an institution's funding, is not mere collegial disagreement. And in this case it doesn't appear to have emanated from college professors, but rather from politicians or others with strings to pull, as is almost always the case. Let me be clear: I have no evidence that Mike Fair or his Discovery Institute backers are responsible for issuing these threats. But someone in state government was responsible for that threatening email about Rob Dillon, otherwise there would have been no talk of cutting funding to the College of Charleston. (Which the state doesn't need an excuse for, since it happens every year anyway.) And moreover, the email cites disparaging remarks from an EOC member, which clearly didn't make their way into the missive by accident. The Discovery Institute has been spoon-feeding strategy to Mike Fair and other anti-evolution politicians in South Carolina for some time now. They are responsible for the "critical analysis" language that Fair is trying to insert into the biology curriculum. Perhaps they've shared with him another one of their strategies: always accuse the other side of your own sins.

69 Comments

Rick @ shrimp and grits · 8 March 2006

Notice that the Greenvile News is running Skell's EOC letter as an op-ed?

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060307/OPINION/603070305/1016

Rick @ shrimp and grits · 8 March 2006

Oh yes, then there's the wonderful letter from Rep. Bob Walker that's featured in The State today

http://shrimpandgrits.rickandpatty.com/2006/03/08/scientists-are-a-bunch-of-liars/

steve s · 8 March 2006

Given the vileness of the 'Discovery Institute', I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue Panda's Thumb.

Flint · 8 March 2006

Ultimately, the leverage for this entire campaign is being provided by the voters of South Carolina. Without their solid backing, this entire campaign would be a non-starter. The implicit rule underlying the DI's tactics seems to be, anything is permitted so long as it doesn't bring the courts into play. So maybe the best counter strategy is to sue? So long as the politicians think they have a mandate, they'll keep the deck stacked as we see.

FastEddie · 8 March 2006

Thanks for the South Carolina update. I'm a CofC alum myself (1988) and I am proud that my life-giving mother is taking an active role in resisting the Disco Institute (all these years later, Disco still sux).

wamba · 8 March 2006

Notice that the Greenvile News is running Skell's EOC letter as an op-ed?

By Philip S. Skell I am writing -- as a member of the National Academy of Sciences -- to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory. ...

What a perfect opportunity for someone to respond with the info that he is a "loose gun" and the National Academy does not agree with his position.

BWE · 8 March 2006

The DI responding to Dr Edwards I assume: "in South Carolina, and elsewhere Darwinists are claiming that any criticism of Darwin's theory is the same as intelligent design. " http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/mainstream_media_continue_to_m.html

This just isn't true. You are mistaken in telling people that Ohio or Utah were about intelligent design. That is factually wrong. Ohio was very clearly NOT about intelligent design, contrary to the bogus claims of the rabid Darwinists that sought to mislead the public and the policy makers there. I hope you do not misreport this important fact. Teaching students both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution is NOT (caps not mine) the same as teaching the theory of intelligent design. In Ohio the standards called for students to critically analyse Darwinian evolution. In Utah, the proposal was basically a disclaimer to students that there are unresolved problems in evolution and that scientists disagree over what this means. Discovery has never favored disclaimers, either in the classroom or on textbooks. Instead of telling students there is a problem with Darwinian evolution, show them what the problems are. The scientific literature is full of unresolved issues and challenging problems for Darwinian evolution, and we think students should be learning about that. If a tenth grade student can understand evidence that supports Darwin's theory, they certainly can understand the evidence that challenges it. It's too bad that whenever attempts to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution come up, there is a howl of protest from the Darwin only lobby that bullies schools and legislatures into shutting down the discussion.

And there isn't any armed conflict. Surprising. If a tenth grade student were able to understand the evidence supporting ToE then they surely can publicly mock the Discovery Institute.

mr.ed · 8 March 2006

If manure was gold, the DI wouldn't have to do any fund-raising. Actually, petrified manure is pretty valuable, even if it's only a few thousand years old.

whatever · 8 March 2006

Does this mean that Sternberg has migrated from his earlier "I'm pursuing a research direction in comparative biology that is a-historical" position to one that actively questions the historic relationships between organisms?

Exactly why would Sternberg be a friend of the DI?

geogeek · 8 March 2006

This is exactly the kind of thing that made up my mind about tenure. It is essential, despite the "deadwood" status of some professors, in providing the ONLY voice in our society which cannot be effectively threatened with financial consequenses for saying things people don't like to hear. The first time I ran across this was a prof. at U of M who was one of very few people willing to testify repeatedly in court about the consequences to groundwater systems of large hog farm operations.

Steve Reuland · 8 March 2006

This is exactly the kind of thing that made up my mind about tenure. It is essential, despite the "deadwood" status of some professors, in providing the ONLY voice in our society which cannot be effectively threatened with financial consequenses for saying things people don't like to hear.

— geogeek
Unfortunately, even that won't stop you from getting threats. Exhibit A: Rob Dillon. He has tenure. When you have a political atmosphere that is hostile to science and academia in general, having more credentials just makes you more of a target.

rdog29 · 8 March 2006

geogeek -

This also reminds me of the retaliation faced a few years ago by some psychologists who challenged the validity of "recovered memories", especially in the context as legal evidence in child molestation cases. They were called "pedophile sympathizers" and other such nonsense.

So now the IDiots are resorting to political thuggery. And they accuse "Darwinists" of using Stalinist tactics?!

But of course, ID is "all about the science". Well, Behe admitted in Dover that science would have to be redifined to accomodate ID. Maybe we're seeing the beginnings of a Brave New Science.

Rick @ shrimp and grits · 8 March 2006

This just in! SC's board of education does not drink the Kool-Aid. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/14048833.htm

On an 11-6 vote, the state board upheld its previous evolution-only science curriculum for 10th grade biology. Last month, the state's Education Oversight Committee voted to add the phrase "critically analyze" to the evolution guidelines. Educators say that change would open the door to other theories about the origin of man. The fear among educators is that the change would introduce religious themes to those discussion and undermine what has been regarded as among the nation's strongest science standards.

geogeek · 8 March 2006

Unfortunately, even that won't stop you from getting threats. Exhibit A: Rob Dillon. He has tenure. When you have a political atmosphere that is hostile to science and academia in general, having more credentials just makes you more of a target.

What I'm saying is that tenure means threats are less meaningful, because their material consequences are lessened. It is relatively easy to fire or pressure someone without tenure: someone protected by tenure may speak their mind knowing that the dean might not like them any more, but they can't be fired for refusing to bend over to majoritarian group-think. It's not an asbestos coat, but it's a very important protection.

Steve Reuland · 8 March 2006

Geogeek: Point taken, I agree.

Rick: That's great news! It's a better margin of victory than I think we expected. Keep an eye on the front page and I'll blog about it as soon as I get the scoop from those who were there. Assuming, that is, that they haven't been celebrating too hard...

BWE · 8 March 2006

Do you get the queasy feeling that that 11-6 is representative of America?

Madam Pomfrey · 8 March 2006

"Unfortunately, even that won't stop you from getting threats. Exhibit A: Rob Dillon. He has tenure."

Taking a visible stand against IDC guarantees that you will be deluged with hate mail and threats, and it takes a thick skin to remain in the game. ID crackpots don't have to worry about this because the cranks are *for* them, and scientists who disagree with someone else's conclusions rarely resort to middle-school name-calling and death threats. I find it amusing that the IDC nuts complain about being "treated badly" or "derided" by real scientists (translate = their religious apologetics are not taken seriouly as science) when all a scientist has to do is open his or her mouth against IDC to be the target of vicious hate campaigns. In my case, my department became the target of a fundamentalist letter-writing campaign calling for my termination. Most of the letters were from religious wackos with serious psychological problems, but some were from right-wing militia types with a misogynist bent and were physically threatening. This is the type of reaction one gets these days when standing up for science, something I'll bet Behe and Dembski don't have to deal with. And the crackpots want the public's sympathy because we scientists "won't listen" to them? Get real.

John · 8 March 2006

I fear that 11-6 isn't, but that a much closer vote, maybe 8-9 or 9-8, would be representative of the American public.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 8 March 2006

From the article: "He presented the state board with a letter signed by 67 members of the House, which in part said the Legislature may intervene if the board rejects the EOC's recommendation to add the "critically analyze" phrasing."

Since the state board didn't drink the cool aid does this mean its lethal injection time?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Lou FCD · 8 March 2006

What? Religious Zealots who can't force their opinions on everyone else about to use the hangman's rope to accomplish their goals? This is my shocked look I'm wearing. They'll be erecting the burning stake in the square next Tuesday, I hear.

Robert · 8 March 2006

Being a South Carolinian and Charlestonian myself, this whole thing scares the hell out of me but doesn't shock me. This state is unfortunately in that demographic of people who will believe and thrive on the DI's crap storm.

I can only guess that there will be similar lawsuits to overturn it if Mr. Fair's proposals make it through.

Bill Gascoyne · 8 March 2006

Why dont' we just call these people what they are. They're theocrats. South Carolina, North Dakota, they're all the same. They want to legislate from their pulpit. They, not John Walker Lindh, are the American Taliban.

Ed Darrell · 8 March 2006

Interesting irony.

One of Darwin's most famous works, of course, was his paper on insectivorous plants, a truly ground-breaking piece of work. His fly-traps, of course, come from South Carolina (and North Carolina, to be fair -- the little snappers don't honor political borders).

Nitrogen-starved soils affect more than just the eating habits of plants, it would appear. What would cause any politician in a state to go so bizarre on a guy who brought the state honor, interest, tourists and dollars?

Lou FCD · 8 March 2006

Amen Brother Bill. Couldn't have been said it better.

Lou FCD · 8 March 2006

Of course, MY comment could have....

Svlad Jelly · 8 March 2006

We should all chip in and buy the Discovery Institute a cross, so whenever one of them is feeling unloved they can all haul it out onto the lawn and nail the poor sap to it. Make a real event of it, yeah? Burgers and hot dogs. Chips and dip. Flavored fizzy water. Pasta salad. Ritual crucifiction.

Sir_Toejam · 8 March 2006

It is very rare for a professor to get fired merely for saying something controversial

but it HAS happened. I can think of two recent cases, one involving a statement about differences in learning based on sex, and the other (closer to home) relating to an email made public in which the person stated his distaste for fundies. In those specific instances, I can't see how the actions by the University served anybody in any beneficial way. Free speech is a complicated issue, to be sure, but Universities should ALWAYS stand behind their faculty, unless that faculty has violated the rules of the University itself.

Steviepinhead · 8 March 2006

I wasn't aware that the UK professor who wanted to teach about ID in a religious history class actually got fired.

Just heavily criticized, beaten up, and forced to withdraw the course offering.

Not that those things aren't bad, but they beat the same list with "looking for work" tacked onto the end...

Or, Sir, you may be thinking of some other instance.

Or, I could be remembering things wrong.

Or the universe could have been intelligently designed by space aliens from another dimension fafarman away from ours.

Sir_Toejam · 8 March 2006

I wasn't aware that the UK professor who wanted to teach about ID in a religious history class actually got fired.

Paul Mirecki. he was relieved of his department chair, but not let go altogether. that's a serious blow to one's credibility and earning power as a University faculty. I seriously doubt there were any University regs. that would have allowed them to actually fire a tenured professor for stating an opinion in an email, but I'm sure they would have if they could. sad. a similar incident in the UK, you say? who was that?

Sir_Toejam · 8 March 2006

oh, nvmd. I haven't had my coffee yet.

UK=University of Kansas.

duh.

Sir_Toejam · 8 March 2006

btw, it's abbreviated KU (just to avoid my personal confusion, I'm sure ;) )

RBH · 8 March 2006

Madame Pomfrey wrote
In my case, my department became the target of a fundamentalist letter-writing campaign calling for my termination. Most of the letters were from religious wackos with serious psychological problems, but some were from right-wing militia types with a misogynist bent and were physically threatening. This is the type of reaction one gets these days when standing up for science, something I'll bet Behe and Dembski don't have to deal with. And the crackpots want the public's sympathy because we scientists "won't listen" to them? Get real
I think a worthy project would be collecting the hate mail, and publishing it online. Not merely examples of it, but all of it. Then start calling the mainstream churches' attention to it. Rub their noses in what's being said to professionals on behalf of "Christianity". Those moderate and mainstream Christians could be our strongest allies. RBH

Steve Reuland · 8 March 2006

I can think of two recent cases, one involving a statement about differences in learning based on sex, and the other (closer to home) relating to an email made public in which the person stated his distaste for fundies.

— Sir_Toejam
In the first case, I'm sure you're referring to Larry Summers, who was not a professor, and who was fired for irritating the faculty over a wide variety of issues, his statements on women in science being only one, and a minor one at that. In the second case, Paul Mirecki was not fired. He did resign as dept. head, but he's still a professor. And as per my point about politicians and such, it wasn't his fellow professors calling for his head.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 March 2006

Among other things, we get to learn that South Carolina is now considered a "main focus" of the Discovery Institute

Gee, the last few things they considered their "main focus" didn't, uh, work out very well for them . . . . How many times do you have to sit on a hot stove before you realize that it burns your ass?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 March 2006

in South Carolina, and elsewhere Darwinists are claiming that any criticism of Darwin's theory is the same as intelligent design

They are. (shrug) Can any IDer out there point to any "criticism of Darwin's theory" that isn't lifted intact from the earlier "scientific theory of ID" or the even earlier creation "science"? (sound of crickets chirping) Didn't think so.

Steviepinhead · 8 March 2006

I'm UK and you're KU too?

I forgotten that Mirecki had had to step down as head of his department, which is of course a serious consequence of being on the evidence-having side of this strained divide.

Don Baccus · 8 March 2006

In the first case, I'm sure you're referring to Larry Summers, who was not a professor, and who was fired for irritating the faculty over a wide variety of issues, his statements on women in science being only one, and a minor one at that.

— Steve Reuland
True. Also, the NY Times article that reported on his resignation quoted him as saying that he intends to teach courses at Harvard. So it appears his right to teach at the University is not being yanked from him. I have no idea if ex-Presidents of Harvard are granted that right automatically, or if it was part of his resignation agreement. Bottom line is that he got in a power struggle with a majority of tenured professors at Harvard, and lost that struggle. As Steve states, his comments regarding women were a small part of the overall battle. His opponents latched onto those comments but were pissed-off at him before he made them and continued to be pissed-off over other issues afterwards.

Mike Elzinga · 8 March 2006

I like RBH's idea of posting the hate mail Madame Pomfrey was referring to on the internet. Of course we would want to include the names of the writers of this hate mail. Would TalkOrigins have a place for this?

Steviepinhead · 8 March 2006

As I was feebly trying say, over and around the ever-helpful KwickXML gremlins, I appreciate being reminded that Mirecki lost his departmental chair-ship.

I had simply forgotten that important aspect of things and was not meaning to imply by my omission that that was not a serious consequence of his support of the evidence-having side of this strained cultural divide.

FastEddie · 8 March 2006

Don't forget that the Fordham Foundation gave South Carolina's science standards an A. Its standards for evolution received the top rating.

I guess this excellence irked the crap out of Mr. Fair.

AD · 8 March 2006

Well, the Fordham science standards are obviously part of a atheistic-facist-stalinist conspiracy to oppress the Christian minority of America! (despite the fact that 80% of America is Christian)

Therefore, the only true patriotic stand in a country founded under GOD and obviously molded in the Christian image (mine, to be exact) by the founding fathers is to get such a flagrant F that the forces of this conspiracy will bow before the truthiness of the state and disavow their crusade to send our children to hell for actually knowing things about the world.

(Sarcasm!)

KL · 8 March 2006

"Burgers and hot dogs. Chips and dip. Flavored fizzy water. PASTA salad. Ritual crucifiction."

Ooooooohhh... the FSM would NOT be pleased....

"I think a worthy project would be collecting the hate mail, and publishing it online. Not merely examples of it, but all of it. Then start calling the mainstream churches' attention to it. Rub their noses in what's being said to professionals on behalf of "Christianity". Those moderate and mainstream Christians could be our strongest allies."

I suspect that this is true. I was quoted in an nationally distributed Episcopal newsletter saying that scientific theories are not validated by "public opinion" nor should science be defined to include supernatural explanations. I was identified by full name, position and school (over a month ago), and haven't heard a peep. Nada. I live in a town with an Episcopal Seminary, so I know it has been read. Clearly it fell on agreeable ears in the Episcopal Church. Maybe most of them think it is a non-issue.

Henry J · 8 March 2006

Re "Make a real event of it, yeah? Burgers and hot dogs. Chips and dip. "

Spaghetti?

Henry

BWE · 9 March 2006

My favorite prof forced to step down whatever is Ward Churchill
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Who said interesting things that pissed off the wrong folks.

Andy H · 9 March 2006

Comment #85012 posted by Steve Reuland on March 8, 2006 06:38 PM In the second case, Paul Mirecki was not fired. He did resign as dept. head, but he's still a professor. And as per my point about politicians and such, it wasn't his fellow professors calling for his head.
On the contrary, " 'Professor Mirecki resigned as chair at the recommendation of his own peers --- his departmental faculty,' KU officials said in a prepared statement," according to http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/13/ku_mirecki_left_leadership_post_voluntarily/?evolution An email which Mirecki posted on a semi-public Internet forum said that his new course labeling creationism and ID as "mythologies" would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies." Even after the email was exposed, the KU provost continued to support him -- see http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/nov/24/ku_evo_email/?evolution However, the KU chancellor issued a statement denouncing the email, and the course was quickly withdrawn -- see http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/02/intelligent_design_course_canceled/?evolution The Lawrence Journal-World newspaper has a long series of articles on the evolution controversy in Kansas -- see http://www2.ljworld.com/news/kansas/issues/evolution/
Comment #84930 posted by geogeek on March 8, 2006 01:07 PM This is exactly the kind of thing that made up my mind about tenure. It is essential, despite the "deadwood" status of some professors, in providing the ONLY voice in our society which cannot be effectively threatened with financial consequenses for saying things people don't like to hear.
Tenure is a two-edged sword. It means that professors are "more equal" than others so far as the right to express themselves freely is concerned.
Comment #84960 posted by Madam Pomfrey on March 8, 2006 03:12 PM I find it amusing that the IDC nuts complain about being "treated badly" or "derided" by real scientists (translate = their religious apologetics are not taken seriously as science) when all a scientist has to do is open his or her mouth against IDC to be the target of vicious hate campaigns.
I have not heard any complaints that the judges, plaintiffs, plaintiffs' legal representatives, and/or plaintiffs' expert witnesses in the Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County (evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers case) cases have been the targets of "vicious hate campaigns." Anyway, these alleged "vicious hate campaigns" are not organized or condoned by the Discovery Institute or other responsible critics of Darwinism. Speaking of dirty tactics, the Darwinists but not the critics of Darwinism are now using the courts to seek censorship of their opponents' scientific views in public-school science classrooms, and such use of the courts includes the financial blackmail of the threat of exorbitant awards of mostly imaginary legal costs.

KL · 9 March 2006

"Speaking of dirty tactics, the Darwinists but not the critics of Darwinism are now using the courts to seek censorship of their opponents' scientific views in public-school science classrooms"

What scientific views are we talking about here?

Red Mann · 9 March 2006

Thanks for the latest episode of "As The Wingnut Turns" LarAndy Farflungnotions.

Tyrannosaurus · 9 March 2006

Talking about science teaching and bogus propositions, while reading the Washington Post I found a quote attributed to Michael Specter in an essay he wrote in The New Yorker, and reads.
Underlying it all is a commitment to belief over fact, what should be over what is. It is evidenced in the insistence by Bush and others that "intelligent design" is, like evolution, worthy of teaching. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," Bush once said. Yes, and astronomy and astrology, too, and maybe chemistry and alchemy as well. It's a totally bogus proposition.
No wonder the "teaching the controversy", "academic freedom" etc at nausea Trojan horses keep showing up state after state.

Andy H · 9 March 2006

Comment #85014 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 8, 2006 06:41 PM Can any IDer out there point to any "criticism of Darwin's theory" that isn't lifted intact from the earlier "scientific theory of ID" or the even earlier creation "science"?
Well, there's Andy's Law of Co-evolution, which says, "natural co-evolution of two corresponding mutations is virtually impossible where the mutations in both organisms are detrimental to the organisms when the corresponding mutation in the other organism is absent." I assume that this is a new scientific law because I have not seen anything like it before. Also, many Darwinists have the idea that once they think that a particular criticism of Darwinism has been "refuted," that criticism never need be considered again, even when new evidence or new arguments are presented. It is these Darwinists who have closed minds. Since the Darwinists think that they already have all the answers, I propose that funding for research connected with evolution be eliminated or drastically reduced. Some Darwinists have even gone so far as to call Darwinism a scientific "law." How much research is being done today to verify the fundamental laws of science ?
Comment #85127 posted by KL on March 9, 2006 06:39 AM "Speaking of dirty tactics, the Darwinists but not the critics of Darwinism are now using the courts to seek censorship of their opponents' scientific views in public-school science classrooms" What scientific views are we talking about here?
All past, present, and future scientific criticisms of Darwinism. The conclusion section of the Dover opinion says that the Dover school board is prohibited from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution." Also, the textbook sticker that was ruled unconstitutional in Selman v. Cobb County did not identify any particular criticism of evolution theory and did not mention anything connected with religion. This textbook sticker only said, " This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Rilke's Granddaughter · 9 March 2006

Larry le pissoir speaks:

Well, there's Andy's Law of Co-evolution, which says, "natural co-evolution of two corresponding mutations is virtually impossible where the mutations in both organisms are detrimental to the organisms when the corresponding mutation in the other organism is absent." I assume that this is a new scientific law because I have not seen anything like it before.

No, it's nonsense because it doesn't exist. Your ignorance of evolution, science, and law does not constitute an argument. Until your comments reach the level of presenting actual ideas based on actual science no one is going to do anything more than consider you to be an ignorant moron. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. When you demonstrate that you can talk with grownups, then the grownups will pay attention to you.

Also, many Darwinists have the idea that once they think that a particular criticism of Darwinism has been "refuted," that criticism never need be considered again, even when new evidence or new arguments are presented. It is these Darwinists who have closed minds.

And as soon as you can present some new evidence or argument, you just let us know. So far you haven't.

Since the Darwinists think that they already have all the answers, I propose that funding for research connected with evolution be eliminated or drastically reduced. Some Darwinists have even gone so far as to call Darwinism a scientific "law." How much research is being done today to verify the fundamental laws of science ?

Every single experiment. Every piece of research. Of course, if you actually knew anything about science (or law or any other topic) you would have known that. But you don't. Remember Larry: your ignorance does not consitute an argument.

All past, present, and future scientific criticisms of Darwinism.

A factually incorrect statement based on your personal ignorance.

The conclusion section of the Dover opinion says that the Dover school board is prohibited from "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution."

In Dover. By the teachers or the board. Not by anyone else. Had you actually read the opinion, you'd have known that. Remember Larry: your ignorance does not consitute an argument.

Also, the textbook sticker that was ruled unconstitutional in Selman v. Cobb County did not identify any particular criticism of evolution theory and did not mention anything connected with religion.

Of course not. You're strawman burns nicely.

This textbook sticker only said, " This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Remember Larry: your ignorance does not consitute an argument. Is being abused in public by people smarter than you really compensation for having no life? I just wonder...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 March 2006

Well, there's Andy's Law of Co-evolution, which says, "natural co-evolution of two corresponding mutations is virtually impossible where the mutations in both organisms are detrimental to the organisms when the corresponding mutation in the other organism is absent." I assume that this is a new scientific law because I have not seen anything like it before.

Nobody cares about your uneducated opinion, Larry. (shrug) But anyone who wants to read some back issues of ICR and AiG can see for themselves that "co-evolution can't happen" is not new -- it's decades old, and was standard creation "science" boilerplate for years:

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. ICR Impact #300

Coevolution is often given as the way ecology came into existence. But, coevolution is defined as "joint evolution of two or more noninterbreeding species that have a close ecological relationship."19 Note that ecological relationships had to precede coevolution. Consequently, coevolution appears to be no answer for understanding the origin of ecology. I have no problem with two species fine-tuning an existing ecological relationship; I do have a problem with using coevolution to explain the origin of ecological services. That is an altogether different problem. Remember, we are talking about an essential multispecies integrated service system---an entire integrated system. There seems to be no adequate evolutionary way to explain this. How could multiple organisms have once lived independently of services they now require? AiG, Science and Origins Testimony #5

Yes, a ruminant couldn't live on roughage without the bugs, because these digest the tough cellulose fibre in the plants the animals eat. And the bacteria are mostly highly anaerobic [do not like oxygen], and can only live in the rumen. The animal needs the microbes and the bugs need the animal. It's a good example of design. Evolutionists would argue it's 'co-evolution,' but I don't believe the incredible ruminant digestion system is the result of countless accidental mutations which just happened to parallel each other in the bacteria and the animals. AiG, Creation Archive Vol 21 Issue 1

Co-evolution is discussed in the later part of the book. Predator and prey are said to engage in a sort of 'arms race' leading to accelerated improvements on the part of both (p. 232). Since one is limited to select from features which are already available, the net effect should be faster legs for the prey, sharper claws for the predator, and so on, but nothing truly new. Dawkins discusses examples of complex ecosystems, such as a rain forest, in which various organisms are mutually interdependent (p. 222). What conclusions could one derive from the observation that bacteria break down dead matter and create compost for other organisms? That some bacteria produce methane gas playing a regulating role in the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere? (p. 223). Other bacteria can process nitrogen, a very inert gas, right out of the air and provide products useful for other organisms (p. 225). Is it not just a bit too fortunate that various members of the ecosystem just happen to supply basic needs of the whole? Much is made of co-adaptation: 'the mutual evolution of genes in the same gene pool. In the cheetah gene pool, carnivorous teeth work best with carnivorous guts and carnivorous habits' (p. 233). Now it is known that many genes are active in the biochemical processes of every organ. They produce different proteins, which together do something useful. The obvious question must be posed: until these staggeringly complex interactions were in place as an ensemble, just how would evolving genes provide a congenial environment for each other? A grand chaos of useless amino-acid chains, proto-proteins if you will, serves no purpose. AiG, TJ Archives, Vol 13, Issue 1

Larry's "new argument" is just more of the same old crap. Larry is just too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know that. (shrug)

Raging Bee · 9 March 2006

Larry/Andy/Billy-Bob/Sue/whatever you want to call yourself: given your demonstrated --- and often admitted --- lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

GvlGeologist, FCD · 9 March 2006

Not to derail the thread much further, but suppose someone had derided tenure in commenting on not being able to (for instance) fire Behe or another creationist professor. Does anyone out there really have any doubt that Larandy would have found a way to support tenure?

By the way,

"Or the universe could have been intelligently designed by space aliens from another dimension fafarman away from ours."

"Thanks for the latest episode of "As The Wingnut Turns" LarAndy Farflungnotions."

LOL At least he's good for laughs. Maybe we should start a list.

William E Emba · 9 March 2006

In the first case, I'm sure you're referring to Larry Summers, who was not a professor, and who was fired for irritating the faculty over a wide variety of issues, his statements on women in science being only one, and a minor one at that.

— Don Baccus
True. Also, the NY Times article that reported on his resignation...

Resignation, not fired. Summers was not happy facing a second "no confidence" vote from the faculty. Not that such a vote would actually carry any weight with the Harvard Corporation, and it was an issue where essentially Summers asked the faculty to subject themselves to "no confidence" votes. Very unpopular move on his part.

...quoted him as saying that he intends to teach courses at Harvard. So it appears his right to teach at the University is not being yanked from him. I have no idea if ex-Presidents of Harvard are granted that right automatically, or if it was part of his resignation agreement.

Summers was a tenured Harvard professor (in economics) before becoming President. If I remember correctly, he was the youngest ever tenured professor at Harvard, until Noam Elkies (in mathematics). I do not know if Summers continued teaching while President, but he had that right to teach going in and certainly didn't surrender it.

tomsuly · 9 March 2006

Scary Larry posted:
Since the Darwinists think that they already have all the answers, I propose that funding for research connected with evolution be eliminated or drastically reduced.

What the ???? Is it me or is that one of the stupidest comments you have ever read.

Hey Larry, I have any idea, let's just do away with all scientific research and go back to the Dark Ages.

Well there Scary Larry, you really ARE scary!

Laser · 9 March 2006

tomsuly:

Larry thinks that science should be run by popular opinion polls. He also thinks that what is taught in school in science classes should be dictated by popular opinion polls. Perhaps he has watched too much American Idol.

LT · 9 March 2006

I think one thing many of you overlook is the way the wingnuts frame the argument.

You completely ignore them using terms like 'Darwinist' and 'Darwinism'. It's part of their PR campaign to equate evolutionary science to religious belief. (The obvious hypocrisy being completely lost on them.)

I say this. Find one self described 'Darwinist'. And find one evolutionary biologist or related scientist that refers to the field they work in as Darwinism. The only time I have seen a scientist even use the term is when describing the wingnut's strawman charicature of what the science really is.

So if it's ok for them to label the scientists (and those of us laypersons who follow the science and accept the science as the pest current explanation of how things work) as 'Darwinists', it must therefore be ok to identify them as wingnuts....maybe we should capitalize that....

Cheers.

Raging Bee · 9 March 2006

Maybe Larry The Holocaust Denier Oops I Mean Revisionist Farflungdung also thinks that the number of people killed in the Holocaust should also be decided by opinion polls.

KL · 9 March 2006

Unfortunately, some percentage of the American Public thinks that majority opinion = truth. CNN.com is forever asking people their opinions on a variety of current events; it leads some of us to believe that our opinions could affect the outcome of legal cases, public health issues, global warming, etc. If we ever lose the ability/responsibility/right as educators to filter out the hooey being thrown around and teach what is accepted by the professionals in our fields, we'll have a BIG problem as a society.

It takes time, effort and help to sort through my own understanding and misconceptions in my discipline. I have an obligation to stay current, not only in the science but in the area of secondary education. I am not the same teacher I was 20+ years ago (Thank goodness) nor are the kids the same as they were 20+ years ago. Fortunately, our workplace expects, encourages and supports our efforts to keep up with the rest of the world. Not all schools do.

AD · 9 March 2006

I propose an opinion poll (from a non-biased sample of distinct PT posters) on the validity of any of Larrandy's comments and his continued ability to post, the results of which will be 100% binding from here on out.

How's that for using public opinion polls to determine course of action?

Don Baccus · 9 March 2006

Summers was a tenured Harvard professor (in economics) before becoming President.

— william e emba
Ahhh ... didn't know that. Thanks for providing the nugget of info that makes all clear :)

Andy H · 9 March 2006

Comment #85176 'Rev Dr' Loony Flake said, Nobody cares about your uneducated opinion, Larry. (shrug)
Ah, but you and other Darwinists on this blog obviously do care about my "uneducated" opinions -- that is why you keep responding to me, even if you have nothing to say other than an insult. Even if you Darwinists don't care personally about what I say, you are afraid that the "lurkers" might find my arguments persuasive.
But anyone who wants to read some back issues of ICR and AiG can see for themselves that "co-evolution can't happen" is not new --- it's decades old, and was standard creation "science" boilerplate for years:
One of your quotes did make an argument similar to one of my arguments -- "Predator and prey are said to engage in a sort of 'arms race' leading to accelerated improvements on the part of both (p. 232). Since one is limited to select from features which are already available, the net effect should be faster legs for the prey, sharper claws for the predator, and so on, but nothing truly new." But I have been asking for weeks for examples of past arguments against natural co-evolution, and you have finally provided something, but you provided no rebuttals. And I pointed out that arguments against co-evolution are so obscure that pro-Darwinist and anti-Darwinist websites do not include them in FAQ's, so it is apparent that the anti-Darwinists are not trying especially hard to revive the issue of co-evolution. However, responses to my questions about co-evolution did produce some interesting -- even amazing -- articles about the relationships between insects and plants. Here again are my arguments against natural co-evolution. I pointed out that natural co-evolution is virtually impossible when both corresponding mutations in the two organisms are detrimental to the organisms in the absence of the corresponding mutation in the other organism. No really complex design there -- just two simple mutations required. Co-evolution would be a problem even if neither mutation were detrimental in the absence of the corresponding mutation, because the occurrence of just one of the mutations at a particular time and place would not offer any evolutionary advantage, and it would be unlikely that the corresponding mutation in the other organism would occur at the same time and place, and even if the two mutations did by some miracle occur at the same time and place, that still might not be enough because the two organisms might interact in large numbers and the mutations might not initially provide enough of both kinds of mutant organisms to establish a viable relationship. Furthermore, many co-dependent relationships among organisms consist of an irreducibly complex system of two or more pairs of features, where it would be impossible to evolve just one pair of features at a time. I pointed out that co-evolution is fundamentally different from adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment -- e.g., water, land, air, and climate -- because those physical features are always there to provide advantages to organisms that adapt to them.
Larry's "new argument" is just more of the same old crap. Larry is just too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know that.
Well, it seems that a lot of other commenters here are "pig-ignorant" too, because I have been asking for weeks for examples of past arguments against natural co-evolution and no one came up with anything. And what took you so long ? Yes, I know -- you were too busy posting messages like "shut up" and "no one cares what you think (shrug)."
Comment #85233 posted by tomsuly on March 9, 2006 10:40 AM I have any idea, let's just do away with all scientific research and go back to the Dark Ages.
We should be spending our research dollars on cutting-edge science -- not on already proven scientific "fact" (e.g., Darwinism).
Comment #85237 posted by Laser on March 9, 2006 10:55 AM Larry thinks that science should be run by popular opinion polls. He also thinks that what is taught in school in science classes should be dictated by popular opinion polls.
And why should science education be dictated by a self-appointed clique of Darwinist scientists who are trying to shove an unproven science -- Darwinism -- down others' throats while suppressing criticism of Darwinism ? And whatever happened to those up-do-date opinion polls of scientists ?
Comment #85243 posted by LT on March 9, 2006 11:20 AM Find one self described 'Darwinist'. And find one evolutionary biologist or related scientist that refers to the field they work in as Darwinism.
I use the term "Darwinism" just to be clear that I am referring to an evolution theory which includes the notion that evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation (mostly random mutation) and natural selection. Though the term "Darwinism" is sometimes intended to be derogatory, evolutionists in general have not tried to distance themselves from Darwin, even going so far as to celebrate Darwin's birthday (with one celebration even including an -- ugh ! -- "Darwinian" birthday cake!).
Comment #85246 posted by Raging Bee on March 9, 2006 11:26 AM Maybe Larry The Holocaust Denier Oops I Mean Revisionist Farflungdung also thinks that the number of people killed in the Holocaust should also be decided by opinion polls.
The number should certainly not be decided by mainstream holocaust historians -- they have proven themselves to be utterly inept. Despite claims that the Nazis kept "meticulous" holocaust records, the official figure for the number of people who died at Auschwitz, accepted as 3-4 million for many decades, has been revised sharply downward to the range of 1-1.5 million. And it has never been explained how the Nazis were supposedly able to reliably distinguish Jews from non-Jews. How come we have not heard from people who believed that the Nazis mistakenly identified them as Jews ? Did this never happen ?

Lou FCD · 9 March 2006

Posted by Andy H on March 9, 2006 03:52 PM (e) Comment #85176 'Rev Dr' Loony Flake said, Nobody cares about your uneducated opinion, Larry. (shrug) Ah, but you and other Darwinists on this blog obviously do care about my "uneducated" opinions --- that is why you keep responding to me, even if you have nothing to say other than an insult.

This would appear to be a very blatant admission of a continuing rule violation. Could someone now boot Larry and stop him from trashing every thread, please?

Bill Gascoyne · 9 March 2006

Could someone now boot Larry and stop him from trashing every thread, please?

Who's trashing every thread, Larry or those who can't help but respond to him. I believe it's Dr. Lenny who repeatedly claims that the DI's dupes can't stop themselves from proselytizing; are Larry's responders any different? C'mon, folks, we all know he's a troll with no respect for the rules, let's take a page from the Amish book and shun him. Ignore him, people, stop giving him the responses he craves, and he'll go away.

Lou FCD · 9 March 2006

Point taken... I've just been frustrated lately as every single thread seems to get hijacked by Larry, Carol, or whichever nutjob is pushing their wacked out bullshit at that moment. It's getting so you can't even find the intelligent conversation anywhere in this blog because of all the same old regurgitated sewage getting spewed by the same old self-aggrandizing trolls.

Raging Bee · 9 March 2006

Larrandy Here In My Own Private Idaho I Know Everything (What's My Name This Week?) Farfromaman raved thusly:

And it has never been explained how the Nazis were supposedly able to reliably distinguish Jews from non-Jews.

Um...because they went to temples instead of Christian churches, practiced a different religion, and allowed themselves to be seen and identified as Jews for several generations before the Nazis came to power!

The sheer stupidity of this statement can only be deliberate -- not to mention an insult to the intelligence of any person in the ten-or-older set who can read a book. So no, you're not a "revisionist" asking technical or methodological questions, you're a "denier" of the Holocaust, and any other fact that doesn't fit into your tiny, brittle, pathetic excuse for a world-view. So stop pretending that the information you find here doesn't meet your intellectual "standards," because you clearly don't have any.

I ask again: what makes you think you're fooling anyone here?

Chiefley · 9 March 2006

Quoted from #85036... "I live in a town with an Episcopal Seminary, so I know it has been read. Clearly it fell on agreeable ears in the Episcopal Church. Maybe most of them think it is a non-issue."

Yes, the Episcopalians along with Lutherans (ELCA), Roman Catholics, Methodists, and most of the other mainstream denominations have a highly refined understanding of the role and value of science and its relationship to theology.

I am referring to the official position of these denominations, however, you will find wide variation in the opinions of individual members.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 9 March 2006

Believe it or not, I think Larrandy has made a good point, and one that typifies the reason that it is so difficult to defeat the "breathtaking inanity" of intelligent design creationism. He stated:
Ah, but you and other Darwinists on this blog obviously do care about my "uneducated" opinions --- that is why you keep responding to me, even if you have nothing to say other than an insult. Even if you Darwinists don't care personally about what I say, you are afraid that the "lurkers" might find my arguments persuasive.
And that is precisely the point. IDiots need to be refuted endlessly because they don't care about the truth. It doesn't matter how many times they are slapped down, they will come back with the same BS, because they know that there will be lurkers (or ignorant lecture attendees, depending on the venue) who haven't heard the same tired and refuted arguments. It's dishonest and unethical, but it works. The actions of the defenders of science are much like the actions of insect exterminators. Mosquitos (creationists) are annoying and potentially dangerous, but they can be kept in check with insecticides (education and prompt refutation). We can never get rid of all of them, but we can keep their effects to a minimum. It is, unfortunately, probably a never ending job. The mosquitos (creationists) can win just by outlasting us, but we can win in the same way. This is why, when possible, rather than engaging in reparte, however entertaining, we should just refer to the Talkorigins "creationist claims" website and be done with him. Of course, it's a lot more difficult to do this in a lecture, but at least in the Web, we can say (in response to the coevolution crap), "See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB630.html" and "Shut up, Larry"

Jim Harrison · 9 March 2006

The Nazis endlessly argued among themselves about who counted as a Jew--if you read the primary sources, the debate got downright scholastic with much hairsplitting. In the early 30s, party theorists tended emphasize biology but not even the Nazi doctors could find anything uniquely Jewish about Jewish blood and in the later 30s, some of the more sophisticated SS types were talking about Judaism as a cultural phenomenon, rather as American rightists have gradually switched from denouncing negroes as biologically inferior to denouncing them as bearers of a pathological culture.