Ball State University president Jo Ann Gora announced that the school would no longer teach intelligent design in science classes following a complaint about the curriculum at the public university.
In a statement released Wednesday, Gora said "intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science," and that it would no longer be a part of the university's science classes.
"Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”
The statement responded to complaints from the Freedom from Religion Foundation that Eric Hedin, assistant professor of physics, crossed the line by teaching intelligent design in an honors science class called The Boundaries of Science. The foundation claimed that Hedin may be teaching Christianity to students, violating separation of church and state.
BSU spokeswoman Joan Todd told the Muncie Star Press that the school is monitoring Hedin's class to "ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline."
Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, praised Gora's statement on his blog. "I count this, perhaps a bit prematurely, as a victory," Coyne wrote. "And it would not have been possible if 'outsiders' like the Freedom from Religion Foundation hadn’t warned BSU what was going on."
Seriously? They had to be pressured by outside groups before making a decision to protect the integrity of their science program?
Way to keep those academic standards high.
Stay tuned for the first Right Wing Fundamentalist nutjob to bitch that the university is stomping all over the student's right to be taught 18th century claptrap in place of modern day science.
How long did they say it would be before the majority of the planet would be made up of non-theists again? Because I am tired of waiting.
It's incredible that a state university would EVER have sanctioned teaching intelligent design in a science faculty in the first place. Ship it on over to Religious Studies or the Study of Magic, whatever......
ReplyDeleteExactly. I am curious, was that instructor teaching from his faith or was it mandated to him?
DeleteOr her.
DeleteIt's not clear that the university ever did sanction it. Professors are pretty free to do and say what they want once they have tenure and universities aren't used to monitoring them - they trust the professors to do what they say they will do. And why would it ever occur to them to tell a physics teacher not to address Intelligent Design! That's usually biology.
DeleteHold it - soem of you are really showing your LACK of higher ed, or your obliviousness to how higher ed works. Gryphen included:
Delete"Seriously? They had to be pressured by outside groups before making a decision to protect the integrity of their science program?"
You are aware that once a professor is hired, they don't submit a syllabus for approval? Unless it is a program course, they may even be able to choose their own textbooks.
Personally I think religion should be taught as part of the History curriculum...ancient history!
ReplyDeleteYes,the bible is a decent historical document, or so said my history professor. You just have to apply some logic to the admonitions and wives’ tales.
DeleteWe can also apply some logic and rational thought to the mandate that in Deuteronomy 21, you don't just **stone your child to bloody and horrific death** for being rebellious.
DeleteDeuteronomy 21:18-21
Or kill someone for not observing the sabbath.
Exod 31:14-15
Or force raped women to marry their abuser
DEUTERONOMY 22:28
Even in the 21st century there are delusional Christian Taliban crazies that want to force a rape victim to marry the rapist.
Want a small glimpse into the minds of these lunatic bastards?
Read this forum page by various vicious thugs who call themselves "true christians"
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4419
What wouldn't they do in their quest to make America a theocracy ruled by 80 year old males with unlimited power over everyone else.
I still believe that it's going to take another 1000 years for religion to die out as far as influencing most humans.
People are just too uneducated, too deceived, and too gullible, as is evidenced by the utterly ignorant sycophants who worship $arah Paylin
Let us remember that the self-righteous faux Christians only use OT passages when it suits their purpose at the moment. When pressed about laws in Deuteronomy they quickly switch to the disclaimer that baby Jesus and the NT released them from all that ancient drama so they won't be a party to all that stoning and damning. It's a very convenient tool, the ancient basis for modern day flip-flopping.
DeleteRead this forum page by various vicious thugs who call themselves "true christians" (followed by a link to www.landoverbaptist.net)
DeleteFor those who aren't already aware of it, the Landover Baptist Church is a parody.
Well, it is BS U after all. David Letterman will have something to say about this. As will Sarah, once she figures out what science is and how much PAC money RAM demands to write her tweet for her.
ReplyDeleteSince Letterman is a BSU alum and Sarah is an alum of Wasilla High School, Dave's opinion matters, and Sarah's screech is just a fart in the wind.
DeleteCue the Religious Right's Right to shove their beliefs and academic standards right down our throats for Freedom and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteI can see that it would be appropriate to compare and contrast the teachings of creationism and intelligent design when the topic of evolution is explored. The students would be prepared to discuss this with the advocates. In preparing for being a biology teacher, it would be important for a person to understand why evolution is based on science and the others aren't. To ignore the topics would be a disservice.
ReplyDeleteIt's a physics professor. Kind of hard to work creationism into a class in which "Because God made it that way" is an adequate explanation of the constant forces of nature, such as g= 9.8 m/sec^2 or F=m•a or Vf= Vi + a•t. I remember a lot more of these from 30+ years ago, and they still do a much better job of describing what we experience physically in this realm; whereas, the intelligent design is just a coat of paint slapped on an old petard.
DeleteKeep mythology in mythology class and if someone needs the class for a humanities elective, they know what to expect and what they need to learn. Same goes for a class on religion, comparative religion, philosophy, or whatever. But there is not such thing as religious-oriented physics, just an instructor who is introducing his own personal prosthelyzing into a class totally unrelated to religion or ethics and wasting the time of those who are paying tuition to learn real science.
I'd also tell him: Don't bring your hobbies like woodworking or bird watching into class either, unless you can use something related to either as examples in calculation of forces, etc.
eclecticsandra wrote: I can see that it would be appropriate to compare and contrast the teachings of creationism and intelligent design when the topic of evolution is explored.
DeleteSince the "teachings" largely comprise efforts to poke holes in what is known about evolution, it would certainly make sense for a course in the Education faculty to cover this, warning the future teacher what misunderstandings/misrepresentations to watch out for. But as far as positive teachings, offering alternative mechanisms (other than goddidit), something to actually compare and contrast, go, there's simply no "there" there.
I don't understand how evolution fits into a physics course. Would the professor be explaining how the formulae came about? I would think that a liberal education would inform students that there are people who dispute the scientific method. I have taught science for many years and never had anyone dispute my teachings, but I would have been ready to explain the differences of science and dogma. In fact, the beginning of each course was to go over scientific method and explain how findings are considered valid.
Deleteeclecticsandra wrote: I don't understand how evolution fits into a physics course.
DeleteWell, although the (only) professor in question was an assistant professor of physics, the course in question was "an honors science class called The Boundaries of Science", which he apparently felt was license to go not so much beyond the boundaries of science, as off in an orthogonal direction, into religious apologetics.
BTW, my current email .sig is a quote from Stephen Jay Gould: In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." --sjg
well Sandra, that would be appropriate in MIDDLE school. By university, a student should know the difference. If not , then they damn well shouldn't be at university.
DeleteI cannot believe that they've been including "intelligent design" in their science courses, except as an example of what approach not to take.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
"...Stay tuned for the first Right Wing Fundamentalist nutjob to bitch that the university is stomping all over the student's right to be taught 18th century claptrap in place of modern day science."
ReplyDeleteI'm putting my money on Mrs Palin as soon as someone on her well paid research staff informs her that Ball State is the alma mater of one David Michael Letterman. Yep Palin, that 'Dave'.
ReplyDeleteFlorida Puppeteer for Christian TV to serve 20 years for child porn, fantasized about dismembering children
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/08/04/florida-puppeteer-for-christian-tv-to-serve-20-years-for-child-porn-fantasized-about-dismembering-children/
Those poor american talibans being persecuted again ROTF
ReplyDeleteSarah is so pissed at Ball State, that she is returning the scholarship offers they gave to Bristol, Track and Willow.
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear to me that Ball Statte was "pressured." It sounds like they probably didn't know what the idiot professor was saying, and when informed, made a public statement about their position as Intelligent Design as a scinece (NOT) and that they would follow up on the professor to make sure he abided by this. I'm guessing it never occurred them to to monitor every professor's class on the chance someone would teach Intelligent Design. And even if they knew someone might, probably not worth the costs to monitor every class. It appears they responded swiftly and clearly, and I think that's probably about the best that can be expected.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what credentials the professor had. Certainly getting a PhD in a science such as physics would require following scientific principles to get the degree. I can't understand how someone would ever consider something other than science as being valid.
ReplyDeleteMichael Behe is a tenured professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. For those of you who don't know Lehigh, it's a great school for very smart people.
DeleteBehe is a vocal supporter of Intelligent Design.
He earned his PhD from Penn.
I guess his department feels unable or unwilling to force him out, but the statement about Behe and intelligent design on their webpage suggests they're not too happy to be associated with him.
Gee, if an outside entity had to bring this to their attention, it makes me wonder if "Pelicans" are involved in teaching human reproduction in Biology Class?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the Freedom From Religion folks spoke up, one would THINK at the University level, fairy tales and myths wouldn't be taught as "Science".
When I was in College, the students wouldn't have acquiesced, there'd be articles in the school papers, protests and the media would have gotten involved.
professors, even assistant professors are rarely monitored. They're hired for their research, not their teaching. When's the last time you heard anyone who ever went to college talk about someone sitting in in monitor the course content?
DeleteThey are "observed" on occasion, usually notified before, not a pop quiz. It becomes part of their tenure review. Some profs will also play devil's advocate and NOT tell students their own views, often laying out a range of material, and letting the students come (with guidance) to their own logical conclusions first.that is what could have happened, and is an appropriate way to teach in an honors course. You can't point out/correct the flaws in their logic if you never allow students to make errors. Good profs and teachers don't spoonfeed, but let students come to OWN their knowledge through process. Just telling them what to think is indoctrination. Letting them think is teaching. I always loved it when students would come out my courses, convinced in aggregate that I was a liberal/progressive/feminist/libertarian/traditionalist/conservative/communist/Nazi/atheist/Christian/Wiccan.
DeleteGoodness, apparently there is still some common sense in the Hoosier State's educational system. Now that Mitch Daniels is president at Purdue, however, I'm sure that ID will somehow be incorporated into their freshman curriculum.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in the real world, scientists do actual experiments to test out their hypotheses about evolution. There's an article on page 118 of the 12 July 2013 issue of Science (I'm falling behind on my reading) about Rowan Barrett and his research in the Sand Hills of Nebraska.
ReplyDeleteIn that area, there are light-coloured dunes in the midst of darker prairie. The dunes mice are generally lighter in colour than the prairie mice. Saying that evolution and airborne predators have driven this difference is a nice just-so story, but Barrett decided he was going to test it, with real mice, in real-word natural conditions. Well, mostly natural. He had six enclosures, each 50 metres (about 170 feet) square, to keep the test subjects from wandering too far.
I've found the page online as a PDF, at http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hoekstra/PDFs/Barrett2013.pdf. BTW, there's no mention in the article of Barrett's interpreting passages in an ancient book, or invoking an intelligent designer; he set up the experiment and let nature take its course. Preliminary results support the hypothesis, but there's more, as suggested by the article's title.
Ball State may be a university that values education more than research. The example I'm familiar with is in California. The California State Universities prize teaching above research. The University of California seems to value research more than teaching. But, still, the credentials for an Assistant Professor should include a doctorate which would require research.
ReplyDelete