Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PZ Myers defends ID-Friendly University Course!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jerry Coyne has infiltrated a heretofore secret ID operation at Ball State University. Since the secret is now out and in the hands of the Darwinists, I may as well report on it.

Ball State University, in Muncie, Indiana, is a public university (i.e., part of the state university system).

The course is taught by Eric Hedin, an assistant professor at Ball State’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. In one of its guises it’s an “honors” course, “Inquiries in the Physical Sciences,” which fulfills the science requirement for students as part of the University Core Curriculum:

Science Course at Ball State University

Look at the ID sympathetic bibliography:
Bibliography of the Syllabus

Coyne sounds the battle cry:

This has to stop, for Hedin’s course, and the University’s defense of it, violate the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“freedom of religion”) and which has been so interpreted by the courts. It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal. I have tried approaching the University administration, and have been rebuffed.

This will now go to the lawyers.

But PZ disagrees and defends the constitutional right for the course to exist:

No, sorry, not right — academic freedom is the issue here, and professors have to have the right to teach unpopular, controversial issues, even from an ignorant perspective. The first amendment does not apply; this is not a course students are required to take, and it’s at a university, which students are not required to attend. It’s completely different from a public primary or secondary school.

I have to disagree with Jerry Coyne

I thought I might never ever say this, but may the Intelligent Designer bless you PZ!

HT: WT Bridgman

Comments
'Indeed one could argue that the entire premise of Naturalism – the basic idea that Nature is all there is and that the Cosmos and everything in it is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect – is itself a religious commitment of sorts. It is certainly a metaphysical one, and one for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever.' Worse than that, Naturalism unequivocally contradicts the Quantum Mechanics and its rigorously mathematical proofs. It is truly outrageous that they make their living from Quantum Mechanics, indeed, the modern world via leading-edge science depends upon it utterly, and yet they have the brass neck to tout their 'dirt-worship' as the proper ruling scientific (in truth of course, metaphysical) paradigm; while dismissing QM as, well, 'very mysterious, you know', and ID and theism (which QM validates in spades) on the grounds that, 'well, we all know religion is just a fantasy thing'!Axel
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Inference to best explanation is not an implication. KFkairosfocus
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Jguy in #8
It seems to me that Coyne et.al. call intelligent design a religion ONLY because it has theological implications. But that is exactly what Darwinism does! If that is correct. Then, by Coynes reasoning, teaching Darwinism should be illegal.
To make matters even worse for Coyne is that the concept of evolution itself is tied to theology. In his book Darwin's God, Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter makes a pretty good case that a lot of the impetus behind evolution is a "God wouldn't have done it that way" mentality. The late Stephen Gould championed this idea in his book The Panda's Thumb when he wrote:
But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin.
One wonder's how Gould knows scientifically what a sensible God would or would not do. The point is that at root it is a theological argument, not a scientific one. The argument could be laid out thusly: Premise 1: We observe "odd arrangements and funny solutions in biological systems Premise 2: God wouldn't have done it that way Conclusion: Therefore, evolution. I'm still waiting for the science to confirm the 2nd premise. Be that as it may, the point to be appreciated is that Coyne, Gould, and the rest of that lot want to exclude Design from any state sponsored curriculum on the grounds that is somehow a violation of the so-called constitutional separation of Church and State. (We'll leave aside entirely for the moment that no such language exists in the constitution.) as Design is "religion". Yet, all the while, they carefully sneak religious premises into what is supposed to be "just science". Indeed one could argue that the entire premise of Naturalism - the basic idea that Nature is all there is and that the Cosmos and everything in it is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect - is itself a religious commitment of sorts. It is certainly a metaphysical one, and one for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever. So, what Coyne and others want is preference to be given to a particular metaphysical commitment for the sake of doing "science". How is that not sneaking religion into the back door of Science?DonaldM
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Methinks Jerry Coyne doesn't know what religion is and he doesn't know what science is...Joe
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Wow... nice to see that PZ is capable of not being a complete douche bag for once.cheshire
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal. - coyne What is religion? In general: Isn't it a set ideas one holds about reality, that also lead one on how to live? It seems to me that Coyne et.al. call intelligent design a religion ONLY because it has theological implications. But that is exactly what Darwinism does! If that is correct. Then, by Coynes reasoning, teaching Darwinism should be illegal.JGuy
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
even from an ignorant perspective Im not sure PZM is your friend.Graham2
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
The schools all belong to the people. The truth is the objective in subjects where its clearly the objective. Origin classes are about the truth. If something is censored then it either must be because its not the truth or despite it being a option for truth its still illegal. If they censor creationism(s) then the state is either saying its not true or its admitting to censoring it because it doesn't like the religious connections. if the latter then the state is acting against the separation idea. Why is my logic wrong here?? It isn't. so creationism can't be censored because it touches on religion. Takes a Canadian eh!Robert Byers
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
So, rather than starting bottom up by getting ID taught at the high school level, we should be encouraging more universities like Ball State to teach it. When enough academic inertia builds, it will inevitably spill down to high school. After all, ID takes a top/down approach to biology. Let it take the same pedagogical approach.Steve
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Coyne doesn't realize that teaching evolutionism also violates the speartion of church and state as evolutionism is a religion.Joe
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
H'mm: A discussion course on origins science using fairly standard texts and those that explore design and natural theology issues. Evidently, not an indoctrination or an apologetic. Also, provides a spoonful of sugar to make the cosmology and astronomy etc go down -- and anything that draws a crowd to study that will get a respectful nod from me. KFkairosfocus
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Here is a link to the full syllabus: Master Syllabus ASTR151scordova
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
BSU is where I got my Master's Degree. I may have to actually send them a financial gift of some sort! Like you, never thought I'd see the day when I'd say "I agree with PZ Myers!" (Wow, those words tasted bad coming out of my mouth!).DonaldM
April 30, 2013
April
04
Apr
30
30
2013
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply