Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our old pal Casey has opened a new bottle of whine over a proposed course at SMU that debunks ID as pseudoscience.
This past spring, anti-ID faculty at Southern Methodist University (SMU) refused to engage in a debate over intelligent design. Now that Discovery Institute's activities on the SMU campus are over, some of these faculty are sponsoring a course entitled "The Scientific Method - Critical and Creative Thinking (Debunking Pseudoscience)." The course has a clear bias against ID, as the course website has a page devoted to ID titled "(Un)Intelligent Design," which states, "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."
It should be noted that the quote is actually from Bill Maher and is presented as such. Is the statement false? I mean, obviously Luskin is going to disagree that ID is a load of crap, but surely he isn't going to claim that universities have to teach "both sides" of every issue. That would be an absurd position (not that absurd positions and Casey Luskin are strangers, by any means).
They remain true to their promise to offer a one-sided and biased presentation: Their listing of course readings on ID lacks a single article that is friendly towards ID! The readings list, for what they call, "Intelligent Design (a.k.a Creationism version 2.0)," begins by citing to the ID entry from the "Skeptic's Dictionary," then it cites 8 Wikipedia articles, 3 NCSE articles, a CSICOP page on ID, 4 Talk Origins pages, and then another 15 or so other articles, ALL OF WHICH OPPOSE ID (including one YouTube video entitled "Evolution for ID-iots"). There is not a single article by an ID-proponent to balance out the 3 dozen or so articles that they list in this "Intelligent Design" section.
Imagine that. I bet the astronomy courses at SMU don't include a single article that is friendly toward geocentrism either. I bet the history courses don't include a single article that is friendly toward holocaust denial, the medical school doesn't include a single class that teaches that disease is caused by an angry God or a meddlesome Devil, and the Earth science classes don't include a single book advocating a flat or hollow earth either. Color me shocked.
Comments
I'm going to play devils advocate here.
In a class on biology, there is no way I'd ever include material on ID, for the reasons you outline. You wouldn't include geocentrism in cosmology so no need for ID in biology. However, if the class (or part of the class) specifically concerns a particular pseudoscience, then I do think that material from that pseudoscience should be included. If you are going to critically analyze ID, then not covering pro-ID articles does seem somewhat skewed.
Posted by: SteveF | September 12, 2007 9:36 AM
SteveF - No. Why would you give astrology a nod, if you are teaching a course about astoronomy?
ID is NOT science. Period, end of story.
Posted by: J-Dog | September 12, 2007 9:54 AM
"If you are going to critically analyze ID, then not covering pro-ID articles does seem somewhat skewed."
How can one analyze that which has nothing to analyze? ID has no testable hypotheses, no theoretical basis, nothing. How do you analyze nothing?
ID is nothing more than an inflated argument from ignorance. How do we analyze that?
Should astronomy courses analyze astrological charts? Should chemistry courses carefully analyze the writings of alchemists?
It's time to leave superstition and ignorance behind us, and I'm happy to see that SMU is doing just that.
Posted by: waldteufel | September 12, 2007 9:57 AM
I agree with SteveF, though I'm not sure it's an matter of bias or skew, so much as I would think you'd assign several such works just to help set up the targets. A course on the rise and ultimate overthrow of fascism in Europe would likely include some reading from _Mein Kampf_, not out of 'fairness' but because it's part of the subject matter.
Posted by: philosopher | September 12, 2007 9:58 AM
J-Dog; you missed my point entirely. I wouldn't teach astrology in a course about astronomy and nor would I teach ID in a course about biology. However, if the course is specifically critically analysing a particular pseudoscience (as this one apparently does), then it is reasonable to include materials favourable to that pseudoscience. As I wrote in my first post.
Posted by: SteveF | September 12, 2007 9:58 AM
waldteufel - how did you reach the conclusion (which I happen to agree with) that ID has no testable hypotheses and no theoretical basis? Presumably you read ID articles. Therefore, in a critical thinking exercise (as this one purports to be) you need to engage with material that is favourable to ID. How do you teach the course otherwise?
Posted by: SteveF | September 12, 2007 10:02 AM
"There is not a single article by an ID-proponent to balance out the 3 dozen or so articles that they list in this "Intelligent Design" section."
Well, there is the Wedge Strategy. To be fair to Luskin, not that he deserves it, he almost does have a point. If I were teaching a course on ID as pseudoscience, it would definitely include material written by IDers. Indeed, I'd use Behe & Snoke 2004 as a perfect example of how the little research that IDers do shows it to be wrong.
Unfortunately for Luskin, the actual suggested reading list for the course includes a dozen works written by IDers, including all the major books by Behe, Dembski, Johnson etc.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 12, 2007 10:04 AM
SteveF has a good point - to properly "fisk" it, you have to start with the source material. Mind you, I strongly suspect that the reading list sources Luskin listed DO include quotes and excerpts from actual ID material - but a class in debunking should include some of the bunk.
Posted by: BobApril | September 12, 2007 10:07 AM
It would be interesting and important to analyze movements to discover how they have nothing of substance to them. It would give the students the tools to recognize other empty claims. What signs are there of such emptiness?
Posted by: TomS | September 12, 2007 10:09 AM
A couple points.
1. The class is not taught as a Biology credit or p[art of a Biology class, but as a Physics credit. Physics 3333 The Scientific Method - Critical and Creative Thinking (Debunking Pseudoscience) to be exact, which is cross-listed as CFB 3333 (Cultural Formations, whatever that is).
2. Notice how Casey slyly says, "There is not a single article by an ID-proponent to balance out the 3 dozen or so articles that they list in this "Intelligent Design" section." Emphasis added.
That's because they list those pro ID items in another section. Scroll further down the page and you see they list a number of pro ID books by all the familiar names.
Now I think phrases like "IDiots" and "ID = BS" and "or read these and get stoopider" are just plain ridiculous and have no place in what's supposed to be an academic effort. So I think you can make a genuine criticism of those. But that is aside from what Luskin is whinging about.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 12, 2007 10:12 AM
Having a look at the webpage, it turns out that Luskin is lying. What a shocker. For example, here are the suggested websites. It includes pro-ID and other forms of creationism:
http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/websites.html
Here is the reading list. It includes various books on creationism:
http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/auxiliary.html
Luskin you fucking liar.
Posted by: SteveF | September 12, 2007 10:13 AM
A partial listing of books and articles found on the website (remember, Casey implied that there are no pro-ID writings on the page):
# Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology by William Dembski
# The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski
# Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe
* A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Robert Dorit
* Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) - a review by H. Allen Orr of Darwin's Black Box
* A Review of Darwin's Black Box by Keith Robison
# The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe
* EVOLUTION: God as Genetic Engineer review by Sean B. Carroll in Science
# Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells
* 10 Answers to Jonathan Wells' "10 Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher"
* ICONS OF EVOLUTION? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong by Alan D. Gishlick
# The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards
* INTELLIGENT DESIGN: CREATIONIST ASTRONOMER DENIED TENURE
# Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson
# Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
------------------
In fact, it looks like the list is not the course reading list, but merely a compilation of articles relied upon while developing the lecture. Go to the course main page for the actual course texts.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 12, 2007 10:23 AM
I have to say - that looks like an awesome class. A class like that should be required for any Bachelor of Science student graduating from any college and strongly recommended for everyone. I especially like that there's an entire lecture on "How to Lie with Statistics" - a book I read in High School that should be MANDATORY READING for students who are expected to do any kind of critical evaluation whatsoever. Like, say, voting.
Posted by: NonyNony | September 12, 2007 10:39 AM
I have to agree that I would include some ID articles, the Wedge documents, etc. if only to show clearly where these people are coming from, what their claims are, etc. You can't accurately tear apart a piece of shyte document if you don't look at it first. Were I teaching the course, I would start out with the wedge document. THIS is what they are trying to do, how does this clash with their claims in Dover, Ohio, etc. etc. Then, one by one, address their claims and (easily) tear them to pieces. The question you run into, in this format is, the defender claiming, "we never said that!" Or some such nonsense, at that point, unless you bring the original document in, you have no proof. You could even include a section of the class that addresses, ID research and scientific discovers. You announce that at the beginning of the lecture, stand there silently for about 5 minutes (to create that uncomfortable ... "what is he doing?" moment), and then explain that in the entire body of evolutionary research, there is no ID research program, they have created no legitimate peer reviewed papers, etc.
I think if you approach it simply as an ID bashing expedition, it will end up being less effective than if you "give them their side." Given that "their side" is a house of straw, it should stand for about 3.2 seconds.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 12, 2007 10:39 AM
Don't count on it. These days, with alternative medicine and other woo finding its way into medical school curricula, medical students are being exposed to notions that disease is due to an imbalance of qi and that manipulation of the "flow" of qi can heal. It's only a short hop to the idea that disease is caused by God, the Devil, or evil spirits. I can see it coming now, if present trends continue.
Posted by: Orac | September 12, 2007 10:51 AM
Remind me not to get sick in the future then.
Posted by: Tomas | September 12, 2007 11:03 AM
Well, yeah, a class about debunking pseudoscience is gonna have a bit of a bias against pseudoscience, innit? I can live with that.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2007 11:19 AM
Ed, you're wrong to compare ID to geocentrism. Ptolemaic astronomy was valid science. Yes, it was science that was surpassed a few centuries back. That makes it obsolete science, not pseudo-science. The Greek development of astronomy was a remarkable feat, and the resulting model of the earth and planets and stars was descriptive and testable and generated facts previously unknown, such as the shape and size of the earth. (Columbus famously thought the Greek astronomers were wrong. It turned out, the Greek astronomers were right, and Columbus was lucky.)
Geocentrism gets a bad name because the Church latched onto it as theology. The ancient Greek astronomers were more open to different ideas. Aristarchus proposed heliocentrism almost two millennium before Bruno, and wasn't burned at the stake for doing so.
ID never was and never will be science. It is like astrology or Dianetics or Velikovsky's theories.
Posted by: Russell | September 12, 2007 12:19 PM
I wonder how many ID-advocating students are going to take this class just to try to prove the professor wrong?
Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2007 12:34 PM
You are being too generous to ID.
Your examples, at least in my limited knowledge of them, do at least make some effort at making substantive statements.
When:
Velikovsky gave some dates for the events he wrote of, but ID has no interest in being tied down to the age of life, or at what points in the history of life that the designing took place.
And for the rest of Who, What, Where, Why, and How - ID is uninterested in any of these, while I believe that your examples do make some statements about some of the 6 W's.
I suggest that better comparisons would be with political movements or advertising campaigns.
Posted by: TomS | September 12, 2007 12:50 PM
"Now I think phrases like "IDiots" and "ID = BS" and "or read these and get stoopider" are just plain ridiculous and have no place in what's supposed to be an academic effort."
Well, at least one of you noticed the language this professor uses on a website set up for his students.
I really don't even care at this point about the class itself...they're will always be professors out their with an axe to grind. But, this gentlemen's choice of words on this site are very childish and *extremely* unprofessional.
Posted by: Ftk | September 12, 2007 1:17 PM
typo: they're should be there...whoops.
Posted by: ftk | September 12, 2007 1:19 PM
That is one bet that you could well loose Ed. If the SMU astronomy department does any courses on astral navigation then they will be teaching geocentric astronomy as it makes the math a hell of a lot easier. NASA almost certainly uses geocentric astronomy to steer its space craft.
Russell: Good posting you saved me the trouble, thanks!
Posted by: Thony C. | September 12, 2007 1:55 PM
Russell -
I think the comparison is that neither ID nor geocentrism contribute to the science as we know it today, so naturally neither are going to be taught as if they were today valid. The fact that geocentrism was once considered valid whereas ID never was is somewhat beside the point.
Thony C.-
I don't know from astral navigation, but it sounds like one might assume geocentrism (or a geocentric coordinate axis) there as an approximation of the celestial reality for practical purposes. I don't believe you are arguing that this makes geocentrism valid and that it is taught as a valid physical concept.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 12, 2007 2:15 PM
Fortunately, others have already pointed out Luskins grotesque error. I think all the ID classics are on the list of outside reading -- not that Luskin has ever read them or would recognize them in a syllabus, or anything.
But Luskin may be on to something. Recalling Nebraska Sen. Roman Hruska's line that mediocre people deserve representation on the Supreme Court, too, doesn't pseudo-science deserve a place at the academic table? I understand why the anti-pseudo-science forces at SMU would not offer lectures on the potential good arguments of ID -- I mean, if they did, wouldn't they have to include such lectures on all the pseudo-sciences they debunk? They'd have to have lectures extolling the virtues of chiropracty, UFOs in Roswell, UFOs generally, AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, cold fusion and the dangers of the Bermuda Triangle. Whew! Where could anyone find the time?
But if Casey wants to find a professor of pseudo-science who wishes to teach a similar survey course from the other side, I'm sure that course could include a lecture on how ID is good stuff, between the lectures on how water remembers curative additives it once held but does no more, and where the bodies of the aliens from Roswell are hidden. Wouldn't that work?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | September 12, 2007 2:52 PM
Dave S.
Of course you are right but Ed did not say anything about geocentrism being taught as a model of reality he only said that nobody at SMU would be friendly towards geocentrism and I pointed out that he probably is in error.
Russell's point however has validity, geocentrism was for two thousand years good, solid, validated empirical science until replaced by a better model based on newly acquired scientific evidence. A model that was in turn replaced by Einstein's model at the beginning of the twentieth century. Geocentrism is an important part of the historical scientific process and is a model that is still used scientifically in appropriate contects, such as astral navigation and should never be placed on the same level as intelligent design that has never been and almost certainly will never be even presented as a scientific hypothesis.
Posted by: Thony C. | September 12, 2007 4:14 PM
That web page is hideous--so poorly done, so unscholarly, so unprofessional, that I would be embarrassed to have it associated with any class I taught. It is hard to imagine that they could make UncommonDescent look scholarly by comparison, but they managed to pull it off. It's the web page equivalent, intellectually speaking, of Paul Mirecki's "Evil Dr. P" persona discussing fundies getting slapped in "their big fat faces."
At least it was very appropriate that they use a Maher quote on a pseudo-science web page, given that he is an anti-vaccine, germ-theory-denying crackpot.
Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2007 4:32 PM
David Heddle: HTML design critic
Posted by: Coin | September 12, 2007 4:53 PM
Not quite - astral navigation often uses a rotating reference frame where you set the earth as stationary and non-rotating. This is not an approximation - it's an exact result - but as a result of this transform, your equations of motion become extremely complex with lots of centrifugal and Coriolis terms. Since you're using a computer to solve the equations, the extra complexity isn't a big deal, and the fact that the answer leaves your ground-based telescopes and radio receivers stationary is extremely useful in practical terms, since that's where your observer is sitting.
My advanced Classical Mechanics textbook had the path of a lunar orbiter plotted in a reference frame chosen to keep the earth and the moon stationary on its cover, since that's the sort of problem you use Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics to solve.
Posted by: Alex | September 12, 2007 5:07 PM
Alex,
Hmm... What reference frame would that be?
Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2007 5:12 PM
[/blockquote]they're should be there...[/blockquote]
They're should be where? There?
Or over there?
How about down there?
Posted by: Michael E | September 12, 2007 7:41 PM
You could pick a non-inertial reference frame where the earth and moon were at stationary coordinates (but at least one would have to rotate)
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 8:14 PM
And you probably couldn't find such coordinates where the earth isn't wobbling.
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 8:17 PM
While I endorse many of Mahers positions as well thought out I am often bewildered at his stance on vaccines. So I agree with Heddle here minus the crack pot label.
I have never heard him deny germ theory though. That would be disappointing.
Posted by: GH | September 12, 2007 8:49 PM
Heddle likes to exaggerate the flaws of evolutionists (See his recent comments about Jeff Shallitt on PT for another example). That SMU page had an unprofessional tone, but that hardly compares to Uncommon Descent's evolution denial, global warming denial, common descent denial, oncology denial, and hints of HIV denial.
Heddle's just angry that he was on the wrong side for quite a while, and he's taking it out on us. It'll pass, I hope.
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 9:11 PM
steve s,
Taking it out on you! Is that what I'm doing?
GH,
Maher's view on germ theory courtesy of Dr. Orac, who is a "real doctor," unlike us 2nd class citizen Ph.D. types:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignorant_07.html
Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2007 9:17 PM
GH -
Check out this transcript of the March 4, 2005 broadcast of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER. Scroll to near the end where he has the following exchange with Janet Reno:
Posted by: Dave S. | September 12, 2007 9:20 PM
Not me personally. But watching you lately, you are kind of quick to point out the motes in our eyes. You're quick with the criticism and awfully slow with the kudos.
It's possible that I'm simply imagining you've got a little hostility toward the people who figured Dembski and company out well before you did, and since it was my intent to just suggest that, and not hound you with it, I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 9:32 PM
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 9:35 PM
This very expensive machine at work was getting sketchy, and they brought in a guy from DC to do a bunch of preventative maintenence and mild repair work. Really sharp, gregarious guy. There was nothing for me to do for a few hours so I was standing around chatting with clients and coworkers and somehow the 9/11 Truth movement comes up, and I start laughing about Rosie O'Donnell's idiotic line that never before in history had fire melted steel. About a half a second into my belly laugh the expert from DC turns around with this knowing look and says, "Well, there's no way those temperatures were hot enough. It's a proven fact."
Kurt Godel Disorder is all over the place. Smart people can still believe kooky things. My favorite example is a physics grad student I knew who doesn't think the moon landings really happened...
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 9:43 PM
GH -
At what point would his anti-vax position become crackpot then? I like a lot of things Maher says too, that doesn't make him any less of a crackpot in regards to vaccines. I never heard his germ theory denial either, so I'll withhold judgement for the moment. At the same time, I have noticed that Heddle is pretty honest, so I fear the worse - too, it goes pretty well with anti-vax lunacy. In which case, total crackpot would be a good fit.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 12, 2007 9:59 PM
Of course they happened... on a sound stage in Malibu. Didn't you catch OJ in Capricorn One?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 12, 2007 10:04 PM
Capricorn 1 is actually an entertaining movie. With a hot young James Brolin, too.
Posted by: steve s | September 12, 2007 10:07 PM
You misunderstood my stance. I agreed his anti vaccine stance was bizarre,I do not find him to be a crackpot overall though.
He's more than sensible on enough things to avoid the 'total' crackpot label at least from me despite his bizarre ideas on this front.
The way I read the above he seems to be saying a healthy person fights off potentially disease causing organisms and as such the cause of 'disease' is an unhealthy physical state which allows pathogens to get a foothold.
He has a point in this regard but he still misses the boat.
Posted by: GH | September 12, 2007 10:32 PM
GH says:
Not exactly. Maher evokes Beuchamps, who's theory was in opposition to the germ theory of Pasteur. Acoording to Beuchamps, its all 'terrain', that the microorganisms in a sick person increase because that person has a disease, and not the cause of the disease. Observations like the Flu of 1918, where it was the young and healthy that took the brunt of it, show otherwise. As does the success of polio vaccines and the like.
Needless to say, the Pasteur deathbed conversion scene that Maher mentions never happened. It has all the veracity of the Lady Hope story. And even if it did, it would have no bearing on the truth of germ theory.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 13, 2007 8:14 AM
Dave S:
Ptolemaic astronomy does contribute to modern science, in a way similar to Newtonian mechanics. It is both a predecessor to more modern theories, and as Thony points out, still a useful theory in some contexts. The first physics class I took started by teaching Ptolemaic astronomy, with the students using a telescope to plot the movements of the planets, and fitting their motion to epicycles. Then we did Newtonian mechanics.
Would anyone here compare ID to Newtonian mechanics? Well, why then compare it to older science? Newtonian mechanics also is obsolete and now falsified. In another few decades, we may say the same about general relativity.
The astronomy developed by the ancient Greeks was an amazing work of science. Real science, with real theory, with testable results, significantly advancing human knowledge. The Almagest was the world's chief science text for over a millennium, until the Renaissance astronomers started to do science again, after a dark age. The fact that the Church had then picked up geocentrism as an element of its theology is no more the fault of that theory or the scientists who developed it than the ideological rejection of quantum mechanics by various authors (e.g., Ayn Rand) is the fault of Newton, Lagrange, and Hamilton.
Yes, the old theories of astronomy are taught in some science classes. And deserve to be taught. No, no one pretends that they are current. But neither should anyone think that what is current now will be current in a few decades. Science advances. That is a large part of what makes it different from theology. And even old science represents hard won human knowledge about the world. And that again makes it different from theology.
Posted by: Russell | September 13, 2007 9:22 AM
That sounds reasonable to me Russell. I would agree that the context is important. And would say that ID, as opposed to geocentrism, has never had and does not now have anything to offer to science in any context. Unless you count being a bad example as contribution.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 13, 2007 9:48 AM
A clarification: by "stationary", I mean "their center does not move".
The actual reference frame is: origin at the common center of mass of the earth/moon system, oriented so the Z=0 plane contains the earth/moon orbit, and rotating clockwise (viewed from positive Z) at exactly the moon's rotational period. Choose the center of the earth and the center of the moon to both sit at fixed points on the x-axis. The earth will be rotating, the moon will be practically non-rotating.
Posted by: Alex | September 13, 2007 2:19 PM
That web page is hideous--so poorly done, so unscholarly, so unprofessional, that I would be embarrassed to have it associated with any class I taught.
That's typical for class websites, actually, which are usually banged out in a text editor with only bare-bones html in the minimum time possible. Look at any of the class websites at the SMU physics dept. and they're all equally basic.
The point of a class website is just to dump raw information to the students, it's not to look scholarly or to draw page hits or to sell advertising.
Posted by: Alex | September 13, 2007 2:22 PM
Alex, there would still be some motion of earth's center in that frame--a slight wobbling about the earth moon CM--would their not?
What is the text book with the cover you described?
Also, I was not criticizing the unprofessional format of the SMU web page (who cares about that?) but its unprofessional content. A web page that is a set of references for a course should not contain little editorial comments like "IDiots" or "read these and get stoopider." I would hope that anyone, even the most anti-ID among us, would expect a minimum of professionalism in course materials.
Posted by: heddle | September 13, 2007 4:30 PM
It seems that the DI is still in denial about debate on ID at SMU.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | September 13, 2007 5:24 PM
Very slight, yes. You could either ignore the wobbling, or build it in to your equations of motion, depending on the degree of accuracy desired in your calculations and the timescale of the overall system being modeled.
This earth-moon-stationary reference frame is really the only one that makes sense for determining the Lagrange points of the earth/moon system, for example (that wikipedia entry I've just linked shows a picture of the sun/moon-stationary reference frame near the top, and a picture drawn in the earth/moon-stationary reference frame about halfway down the page).
Marion & Thornton, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems. It very likely has a new cover, since it was close to 20 years ago when I took the course (eek! I'm old!), but it certainly still has a chapter or two on motion in rotating and other non-inertial reference frames. It's really a very common thing to do in classical mechanics - you couldn't model weather systems without it, for example.
Posted by: Alex | September 13, 2007 11:17 PM