Mike the Mad Biologist

MarkH notes that Luskin is upset about what they perceive as academic discrimination against the proponents of intelligent design creationism. So he asks Luskin a question:

Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?

Actually, I would rephrase the question:

Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that intellectual affirmative action is acceptable?

Given the strong conservative affiliations of the ID movement, it would be great fun to watch them twist like pretzels with that one.

I’m such a stinker.

Comments

#1 rev_matt_y
May 31, 2007

They’ll fall back on the “Free marketplace of ideas” argument that they trot out when their position is fact-free.

The concept that the most popular idea must be ‘right’ is one they use sparingly, I would note. I had an exchange on a message board just last week where on most topics they were claiming that ‘majority rules’ particularly in regards to this being a Christian nation (e.g. most Americans are Christian, therefore we’re a Christian nation and government should enforce Christian values) but when discussion creationism versus evolution they argued that the majority were just close minded and resisting new ideas and challenges to the status quo and were therefore wrong.

I’m always a little impressed to see someone who can hold such mutually contradictory views and suffer no apparent ill effects.
#2 Donald Wolberg
May 31, 2007

Freedom has many edges; some may be just dumb, a few brilliant, others somewhere in between. But freedome also means putting up with the nonsense (and you do not need to listen or pay attention), but still having the brilliant available (and you don’t need to listen to the brilliant either). The Creationist rant is silly, and so is their new museum. But the drumbeat from the science side of: “you folks are just dumb” wears thin and hurts more than it helps. Similarly, I am indeed concerned that the “mainline” museums these days are not that dissimilar from the Creationist Museum…bith need numbers of paid people to enter and both are more concerned with entertainment and not inofrmation. I know this is harsh, but I believe that what passes for interactive science museums these days are just awful.

Nice Rockwell image by the way.
#3 mark
May 31, 2007

I read somewhere that someone (from the Disco Institute, I’m pretty sure) did indeed call for affirmative action for the academic pursuit of Intelligent Design “research.” Maybe it was Paul Nelson.
#4 MarkH
May 31, 2007

It’s some bizarre concept they’ve come up with that tenure committees can’t evaluate someone’s ideas when they’re up for review. It’s amazing they are getting away with it.

I want Luskin to answer this because the next question is so obvious. Would you let someone who publishes books denying the holocaust have tenure in your history department, or would it then be ok to discriminate against a stupid idea?
#5 Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD
May 31, 2007

Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?

Having seen what they’ve written about Hector Avalos recently, it’s clear that their answer would be yes.
#6 J-Dog
May 31, 2007

Mr. Luskin. Do you now, or have you ever, had an original thought? I remind you, you are now under oath.

Mr. Luskin. Have you always been a lying detestable weasel, hated by everyone, or did you have to work at it?

Mr. Luskin, you may step down. I have no further questions for this lying weasel Your Honor.
#7 Coin
May 31, 2007

I read somewhere that someone (from the Disco Institute, I’m pretty sure) did indeed call for affirmative action for the academic pursuit of Intelligent Design “research.” Maybe it was Paul Nelson.

I think you’re thinking of Steve Fuller’s testimony in the Dover trial.
#8 Coin
May 31, 2007

But the drumbeat from the science side of: “you folks are just dumb” wears thin and hurts more than it helps.

My informal observation over the last couple years is that the pro-science side has once mobilized in fact been extremely effective in convincing people that creationists are, in fact, just dumb.
#9 Jared
May 31, 2007

I wonder what side of the argument anyone here would have fallen on in the case of a paleonotologist from Harvard who was denied his Ph.D. because he believed in creation. His studies and papers do not discuss it, and his work is scientifically sound. Yet I believe in this case he was still turned down.
It makes sense to say “Bring me evidence, and interpret it” but what if two people look at the same evidence and say different things? What if one person simply says, I believe all of the proof of evolution, and the variation of species, and I believe it shows just how careful and amazing our creator was. He simply set up an experiment, and let it run its course. After he set it in motion (say, a singularity, a one time unexplanable phenomenon, perhaps similar to some “big bangy” type event – I don’t know, can anyone think of anything like that in the deep recesses of the past?) he never had to step in. We’re just interpreting the results ever since. Would I get kicked out of class for that? Even if I fully believe in every way that evolution is the mechanism by which the world has been populated and man has come to be?
What I’m sayin is, just because someone is a creationist, doesn’t mean they should entirely be discounted, they could still contribute to the fundamental understanding of the world. However, if they seek to supress the teaching of the mechanism (which is virtually proved over and again) because it doesn’t jibe with their 4000 year old book’s interpretation of the mechanism – that’s not science. That’s denying science in favor of faith. On the other hand, faith that comes from scientific excellence, I think, should be admired.
#10 Coin
May 31, 2007

What if one person simply says, I believe all of the proof of evolution, and the variation of species, and I believe it shows just how careful and amazing our creator was. After [God] set [the universe] in motion (say, a singularity, a one time unexplanable phenomenon, perhaps similar to some “big bangy” type event – I don’t know, can anyone think of anything like that in the deep recesses of the past?) he never had to step in.

This position is usually described by the term “Deism” or sometimes “theistic evolution”, and it is considered not to be a form of creationism, even by creationists.
#11 RBH
June 1, 2007

Jared wrote

I wonder what side of the argument anyone here would have fallen on in the case of a paleonotologist from Harvard who was denied his Ph.D. because he believed in creation. His studies and papers do not discuss it, and his work is scientifically sound. Yet I believe in this case he was still turned down.

Given that there are no specifics, it’s impossible to tell what Jared’s referring to, but Kurt Wise, known (at least) to his faculty advisor, Stephen Jay Gould, to be a young earth creationist, got his Ph.D. from Harvard.

I tihnk Jared is making it up out of whole cloth.
#12 seks shop
May 20, 2009

wonder what side of the argument anyone here would have fallen on in the case of a paleonotologist from Harvard who was denied his Ph.D. because he believed in creation. His studies and papers do not discuss it, and his work is scientifically sound. Yet I believe in this case he was still turned down.
#13 şişme bebek
June 8, 2009

It’s some bizarre concept they’ve come up with that tenure committees can’t evaluate someone’s ideas when they’re up for review. It’s amazing they are getting away with it