Intelligent Design

Crocker and Sisson’s TV appearance helps launch a half-million dollar pro-Design campaign

Spread the love


On the internet, an 8-minute news clip from the 1-hour show I mentioned here is now available for free.

You can watch the 8-minute news clip via the following link:
The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education.

There was some information in the show which I had not been privy to until this morning.

What is not shown in the clip but was aired on TV was the fact this news production is part of a larger half-million dollar, month-long pro-Design campaign. This is evidence of a desire to keep the issue alive, and the desire seems unquenchable. Direct appeals are being made to large segments of the population. This sort of free information flow materialist philosophy can not stop in the modern day.

(And if anyone criticizes me for making an ID sales pitch to religious organizations, I’ll counter by pointing to the NCSE’s Faith Project Director.)

It is nice to see hints ID may prosper in a post-Dover, post-Kansas world where biased main-stream media won’t be able to pollute the truth.

Salvador
PS
Christine Chenette and I made brief appearances. The content was considerably different than what I had anticipated earlier.

The clip of the IDEA club was a joint meeting with the GMU philosophy club. Seen faintly in the clip, representing the anti-ID side was Karl Fryxell (colleague of Dan Graur from way back). More prominently featured was Emmett Holman who spoke of strategies to combat ID at the AAAS this summer through discussion rather than suppression (see: Holman at AAAS). Holman, though an anti-IDist, advocates discussion of ID at all levels including public schools. Unfortunately that was not aired in the news clip, and only a passing shot of Holman was shown.

The 90 minutes of my interview which was edited out of the news story have been things I’ve written about over the last few months regarding IDEA and the plight of pro-ID college students.

9 Replies to “Crocker and Sisson’s TV appearance helps launch a half-million dollar pro-Design campaign

  1. 1
    tribune7 says:

    Sal, nice job.

  2. 2
    scordova says:

    Links to the Washington Post article mentioned in the news clip are here.

    There are probably a few things in every news item offered that are slightly inaccurate. Please bear that in mind.

  3. 3
    intp147 says:

    Interesting to hear Caroline Crocker’s story. Frustrating to think that a public institution can get away with something like that. If I’m not mistaken, this sort of thing is discussed in Wells’s new “Politically Incorrect” book, which should be arriving in my home any day now.

    Being aware that such things can and do happen to those who presume to question the prevailing orthodoxy, one naturally wonders why ANY assertion from mainstream science regarding the unobservable past ought to be trusted, just because it’s “science.”

    The narrator stated that ID “asserts that the universe, beginning with the DNA inside every living cell, is far too complex to be accounted for by blind random forces.” I didn’t think this was a good definition, since it appears open to the charge of arguing from incredulity and to imply a reliance on a degree of complexity rather than the nature of the complexity.

    Rick

  4. 4
    leebowman says:

    Thanks Sal, a well done video and I hope it gets good play. I have to conclude that the whole scenario rings conspiratorial, since it’s proving to be so prevalent in the academic community.

    Edward Sisson, a partner (since 1/1/2000) at Arnold & Porter, the attorney who presented the amicus brief in the Selma v Cobb appeal, and who was representing pro bono Caroline Crocker regarding a potential lawsuit against the school …
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....chives/285
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1217

    … was not only told to “drop her case” (pressure from the school), but was subsequently “let go” by the firm.

    The video highlights her take on what transpired, her career result, and students’ negative reaction to the firing. Kudos to those students for their courage in speaking out. Crocker concludes with:

    “There are many, many professors who have lost their jobs, many students who have not been interviewed for medical schools due to having had bad recommendations, and the basic reason is their view of evolution.”

    An excellent video clip, and somewhat disheartening. But on the other hand, what’s new?

    Hey Barry, know an attorney who would be willing to take up where Edward Sisson may have left off with Caroline Crocker, and perhaps file a suit on his behalf as well?

  5. 5
    BarryA says:

    Fascinating. Arnold & Porter is also my alma mater. I can tell things are no different there now than when I was there in the late 80’s. When I left I was given a coffee cup as a parting gift. Printed on the cup was this “Congratulations Barry for surviving at A&P for 3.5 years as a conservative.” A&P is a very prestigious firm, and when I was forced out I was upset. Looking back on it, that was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I would be happy to look at her case.

  6. 6
    BarryA says:

    “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11

    I have now had a chance to review the video, and there is an interesting parallel between Mr. Sisson’s experience and an incident at Arnold & Porter while I was there. I had a friend at the firm who represented a pro-life organization. A national pro-abortion organization retained the firm but only on the condition that it fire my friend’s client, which it happily did even though there was no legal conflict between the two organizations.

  7. 7
    scordova says:

    Barry.

    Whoa! You get around. Thanks for the anecdotes. Edward Sisson was featured in the book Uncommon Dissent. It was very compelling account since, he, like so many came to the discussion like many in america, very much in the middle with just curiosity.

    lee bowman wrote:

    Thanks Sal, a well done video and I hope it gets good play. I have to conclude that the whole scenario rings conspiratorial, since it’s proving to be so prevalent in the academic community.

    Here were some things that didn’t make the final edit, but were part of my interview:


    Andrea Bottaro, University of Rochester
    :

    Usually, however, being “pro-ID” goes along with clear signs of poor scientific judgment and practice. For instance, if Behe were not tenured, I think denying him tenure would be appropriate – his arguments are not only scientifically faulty, but they are contemptuous of scientific practice, and his scientific productivity in the past decade has been abysmal. Someone like Axe, I may be more open about, but of course I would have to know him better.

    PZ Myers

    I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID ‘theory’ is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I’d rather not have crackpots promoted. Beckwith may be a nice fellow with a commendable publication record, but when it gets right down to it, his untenable position on intelligent design puts him smack in the middle of the tinfoil hat brigade. And that position on ID is a focus of many of his publications, so it is certainly a legitimate criterion for judging him.

    Audience Memeber’s summary of Glen Branch, NCSE on students

    Branch’s final topic was how to handle a situation where a biology department winds up with a creationist as a graduate student. This was both of general interest, as creationists tend to use their degrees as rhetorical weapons, and of personal interest, as I was part of the Berkeley class that produced the noted Discovery Institute fellow Jon Wells. Unfortunately, his conclusion was that there are no easy answers. He did, however, note that graduate departments exist to serve the scientific community by providing qualified individuals to perform research and teaching services. There is no ethical requirement for graduate faculty to be complicit in the training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field.

    If the report is accurate, and I would welcome Branch clarifying his position, he is saying (in rather subtle terms), that it’s OK to prevent pro-ID grad students from graduating since they are “ultimately going to actively harm the field”.

  8. 8
    SatyaMevaJayate says:

    Now why shouldn’t the larger population exclude darwinists from public social settings due the logical immorality of their beleifin Darwinism…

    We surely can’t have the likes of Glen Branch mentoring innocent impressionable school kids.. since this guy beleives in darwinism, it entirely likely that in his heart he doesn’t beleive in morals/ethics etc etc & given the right situation which convinces him that he can’t be caught by law, he will abuse his students trust…

    so he should be debarred from interacting with students…

    We can’t be complicit in furthering the lifestyle of someone like Glen Branch who left to their own devices will be selfish(as per their own beleifs) & follow in the paths of his peers like stalin & co…

    Can’t we have same standards as darwinist have for ID & science…

  9. 9

    […] Links to a TV program describing Crocker’s ordeal at GMU can be accessed through Crocker and Sisson’s TV appearance. A report of her teaching at NVCC can be accessed through : An insurgency that aims to topple Darwin […]

Leave a Reply