Comments

Perhaps you geniuses overlooked the clause that sounds eerily similar to the bill offered by Sally Kern last session which provides that teachers cannot take off points for viewpoint held on scientific theories.

From SB 320: "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories."

I'll respond with the same criticism thrown at Kern's bill. This would allow a student to answer the question "How old is the earth?" with "6,000 years old" and not be penalized.

But hey, who is to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world 10 minutes ago and implant false memories in our brains?

A+, please!

I have no words for this idiocy...

Perhaps a more eloquent person can put to language what I can not. Just know that this is appalling.

The Zoology professors are protesting, perhaps unfairly and pre-emptively, the whiff of this bill, not the mettle. The Discovery Institute wrote it. What its authors have in mind is not to facilitate constructive educational dialogue, but to open up a hole in an enemy power base, the science classroom... that's right, this is just another maneuver in the culture wars.

I'm sick of the wars. I demand culture peace through real, not weaponized, freedom. I'm inclined to think this bill is trying to wield freedom as a weapon. Within science, evidence and rationality are valued. Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute's baby, offers no real evidence and deploys flimsy rationalization, but the bill's authors know it will cause havoc in a boring, doctrinaire science classroom. Who doesn't prefer a nasty debate to dull facts?

I personally think the real solution is to offer real freedom: make all science classes optional and remove them from the general education system. The only skills a student needs to leave the education system with are communication, critical thinking, basic research, and basic civics. Everything else should be left up to student freedom to decide what to learn about. Then there will be no reason to provide the freedom to spout off nonscientific, cultural opinions in the science classroom.

Its hypocrisy to try and defend your right to academic freedom while trying to shut the opposing view out of the debate entirely. Freedom means not only supporting those views which you embrace, but also those that you do not embrace. Guarding the rights of one and ignoring the rights of another does not constitute freedom.

I think you do our University a disservice with your short sighted comments about this stealth creationism bill. In your argument/discussion/opinion about evolution, replace the word evolution with "Gravity" or "Newtons Laws of motion" or "The Laws of Thermodynamics" and see if that makes any sense. Evolution is a fact just as the others are and has been treated as such by all scientists to formulate ideas and theories since it was accepted. Let's all work to keep mythology in the literature classes where it belongs.

Larry Steele
Composition I Instructor

From SB 320: "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories."

Anyone who objects to this provision has misunderstood it. The Bill refers not to answers on exams, but freedom of conscience. Teachers and schools will still determine what answers on tests are correct. But this means a teacher will not able to flunk a student who simply states that they do not believe, as a matter of conscience, in evolution.

"Evolution is a fact."

In science, a "fact" is something that can be repeatedly observed.

Descent with modification is a "fact," because it can be, and has been, observed repeatedly.

"Evolution" is a theory, not a fact, because no one has ever observed a significant speciation occuring through descent with modification. By "significant," I mean the sort of dramatic changes evidenced in the fossil record.

When scientists can take organisms in the laboratory and get one to change into another--in other words, "evolve," and do this repeatedly--then evolution will become a
corroborated theory. Thus, Newton's Laws of Motion have
been, and can be, corroborated in the laboratory. But even
Newton's Laws break down at relativistic velocities. Thus
they remain a "theory," not a "fact."

We need clear thinking and clear definitions.

I'm proposing that we also allow high school english teachers to form their own opinions on the rules of grammar.

...and that guy who thinks the Apollo moon landing was faked in a movie studio, let him teach American History.

FREEDOM!

I'm glad that our school paper is standing up for the free flow of thought that is necessary to bring about new discovery. I think its absurd (and a quite paranoid) of these professors to lobby against a bill allowing criticism of a THEORY when that’s the job of science in the first place!
Its totally frightening to think that our academic community is no longer bound only by the laws given to us by factual findings anymore, but now by the dogmatic beliefs of many in the scientific community that no longer see the need for evidence, experiment or reason, but find it totally legitimate to call something a fact because many people believe it.
Many people thought the world was flat, but through science and discovery we realized it wasn’t. If the theory of evolution is a “fact” like these select professors claim, then let it hold up to scientific scrutiny and testing. Surely people wouldn't be timid about defending gravity, why should this "fact" be any different. If the theory of Intelligent Design is probable, plausible, and could help us understand the world around us, reason would lead us to think we should test, scrutinize, and criticize this theory to find its validity or lack thereof. Evolutionists ought to be just as comfortable subjecting their view to the same standard.
Its time people stopped throwing sticks in the spokes of science just because it may contradict what they have always believed. We need to seek the truth, not just a forced consensus.

Your editorial "Professors show need for academic freedom bill" is dead wrong. The "strengths and weaknesses" the anti-evolutionists constantly talk about turn out to be distortions of science, out-of-context quotes, and outright falsehoods. Contrary to your claims, the bill is all about attacking evolution for purely religious reasons. The Daily's editorial staff is probably too young to remember the bills the creationists pushed on America in the 1980s so lets review. The arguments for them were the same as what you used . You cite Brogdon's bill's claim not to be about religion. The creationist laws struck down in the 1980s also explicitly claimed to be not about religion. These disingenuous disclaimers have been inserted into creationist-inspired legislation for decades.

You cite public opinion polls support your position. The polls likewise supported the creationist "balanced treatment" bills of the 1980s. And since when do we use polls to determine what is science?

That you share a common ancestor with an eagle and an oak tree is not controversial in science and the bill is an attempt to make kids think that it is. I oppose this bill for the same reason why I would oppose a bill demanding the strengths and weaknesses of the Holocaust or the germ theory of disease be taught.

It sounds like you oppose this bill for fear your theory might be wrong. Let it stand up to criticism. If its as much of a fact as you say, then there shouldn't be a problem.

"I'm inclined to think this bill is trying to wield freedom as a weapon."

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Randy Brogdon, is member of the John Birch Society (and indeed the top person listed in their Speaker's Bureau section on their website). They indeed use "freedom" the word as a weapon but are an anti-freedom organization. Indeed given that society's McCarthyite dogmas, I have a hard time believing that given a chance that they would fire most of OU's professors on ideological grounds--for having the wrong beliefs. Sally Kern is also associated with the Birchers as documented by last week's Oklahoma Gazette: http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/3394/...

Teachers are often afraid to bring up the E-word. This bill if it becomes law will make it worse as they will be under even greater pressure to include pseudoscience -- to say things they know are not true.

Originally evolution deniers tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution. The courts said no. So they tried equal time with creation science. The courts said no. They tried balanced treatment. The courts said no. They then changed from "creation science" to "intelligent design" with the final defeat of "creation science" at the Supreme Court. That failed politically and in the courts. So then came "teach the controversy" and now "academic freedom bill". Every time they are defeated they repackage what they say they want.

Meanwhile common descent remains completely uncontroversial in science. And there can be no bigger sign of what is quackery in science than when the proponents go to school boards and legislatures instead of professional scientists to promote their ideas.

"It sounds like you oppose this bill for fear your theory might be wrong. Let it stand up to criticism. If its as much of a fact as you say, then there shouldn't be a problem."

What criticism? Please name it.

Or do you mean quote unquote "criticism"? Where evolution is attacked with quotes that are out-of-context, out-of-date, or by non-scientists? Or maybe with outright false claims like "there are no transitional forms"? Or to present as "evolution" a strawman that no biologists believes but claim that is what dogma of the "evolutionists" is?

Go to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/... and see what one creationist martyr (John Freshwater) taught his class. Anyone with _any_ understanding of evolutionary biology knows that he completely misrepresented what scientists think about evolution. Whether or not it was by deception or by incompetence, he had no right to do so. The bill in question would give him the right to spread falsehoods about evolution.

We don't allow Holocaust deniers special protection for their "criticism" of history. Why should it be any different for biology? If creationists have some evidence then let them present it to scientists and not try to get laws passes giving them the right to bypass science.

It is typical of university professors to treat with contempt the taxpayers who support them and the parents who overwhelming support and expect a free exchange of ideas. The idea that cells formed or evloved by random, purposeless forces such as natural selection is absurd to many of us and the arguments for it should be fair game. The narrow minded religious bigots of the past have been reincarnated as liberal university professors who posit their beliefs while on the public payroll. Separation of church (of Darwin) and state, indeed!

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Exactly, I couldn't agree more with Darwin. So lets balance the facts on this whole issue.

Fact - the original authors of this bill are from the conservative think tank Discovery Institute led by William Dembski. Their goal is to establish Intelligent Design as part of America's educational curriculum.

Fact - the bill's intention is to allow religious discussion within Oklahoma schools. From SB320 - : "Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories." - which simply means that GOD CREATED THE EARTH AND THERE IS NOTHING MY TEACHER CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!

Fact - the Zogby poll that our wonderful OPINION EDITOR used stated that 80% believe that both the strengths and the weaknesses of evolution should be taught in class.Okay. But it doesn't necessarily mean that 80% of America wants Intelligent Design or creationism (which is the intent of this bill) to be taught in classes.

Fact - the bill is similar to a similar bill by Rep. Sally Kern and we all know where her intentions lie.

Fact - the OPINION EDITOR OF THE OU DAILY who is responsible for this "OUR VIEW" article is the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE OU IDEA CLUB - a campus organization dedicated to spread the teachings of intelligent design. Don't believe me? Then go this website - http://studentlife.ou.edu/index.php?opti...

These are just some of the facts about this situation. But above all, I am still disgusted by the tactics of the OU Daily to severely accuse and attack 2 OU professors. As a student of this university, I think we all (including the OU Daily) owe a lot to our professors. After this situation, it is clear that NO PROFESSOR WILL EVER BE SAFE FOR EXPRESSING HIS OR HER OPINION!!!

Interesting that no mention was made of the Kitzmiller decision, in which it was ruled that Intelligent Design was religion, not science.

The Oklahoma Daily Editorial Board should be ashamed of themselves. You are making a spectacle of this university, disrespecting our professors, and misconstruing and catering Darwin's message on scientific experimentation to your belief that Intelligent Design is relevant, "…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question".

Wake up and smell the coffee. Evolution is a fact.

"The professors are in a minority of people who don’t think the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution should be taught." -If this statement holds true, then it's beyond embarrassing that you all are in the majority.

Before exploiting two professors next time, I challenge the editorial board to discuss intelligent design and evolution with zoology professors from around the nation. What would there opinions be on a bill like this? My hypothesis would be that you would see (rather quickly) that this bill is an embarrassment to Oklahoma.

Cheers to you, the editorial board!

Comparing the Theory of Evolution (which Darwin, himself, claimed had many serious problems) with a recordable, historical event like the Holocaust is totally absurd. That’s a logical fallacy if I’ve ever seen one. I think any group of people can get together and agree to accept a theory as law but until it’s opened to critical analysis (which Darwin encouraged) will never stand up to anyone accept those who already accept it. Science is about PROVING theories, not just making people feel stupid by illogical means until they eventually give up the fight. Open your mind and prove the theory against criticism in the classroom.

We surely owe Professors respect, but by no means should we compromise our ability to think as intelligent people so that Professors feel don't "challenged" or "disrespected" or feel "safe". That’s not the point. We live in a world where our educators are subject to scrutiny, criticism, and testing of their theories. If you want to be told what to believe, America may not be the country for you. We believed the world was flat, that sea monsters existed, and that black people were inferior species for a long time, but it turns out those are all untrue. Had people not challenged these theories, we'd all live in a pretty messed up world right now. We need to look for truth

Darwin himself said to challenge his theory. Remember, it is still only a theory. Surely we all realize that a seven-year-old today has more scientific knowledge, if exposed to the learning channels, than a scientist in the 1950's did after an entire college education. Therefore, it's actually laughable the things Darwin knew nothing about.

Insofar as the Holocaust is concerned, cameras were there to record the events. Humans were there and still exist to give a written and oral history of the horrors of the events. There is no comparison.

Study Darwin's Theory and you may realize, as many scientists have, that it is correct in the refinment of the individual not the origin of species. You do not have to buy into the Theroy of Evo to be a scientist.

Science is a blast and I don't want my kids to grown up so small minded that they think a theory is law and they must accept it, nor do I want them to think they have no right to question & hypothesize because others are scared of becoming more knowledgeable on the subject. We can't become more knowledgeable if we don't question.

Royse87,

To say you are wrong would be understatement.

Science cannot prove anything, most of the time it can only disprove. Proof belongs to mathematics. The techniques used by Holocaust deniers and pseudo-scientific quacks who parrot young/old earth dogma, is the same. Obfuscate - mine quotes selectively, leave out entire paragraphs, cast doubt, shift goalposts, throw the burden of proof on the other side rather than conduct your own experiments to disprove. Evade the forums where research is discussed - discotute quacks aren't biologists mostly, and the ones who are are mere graduates not practitioners (like Wells with publication record) and if they do they have no evidence at all. Others like Behe don't take on graduate students - because no one wants to work with them, don't do research. Or some like Dembski work at diploma mills. the new creationists aka the old earth guys aka the ID types are notorious for their intolerance. Their blogs as a rule have disabled commenting, and even where they do, they make it a point to delete the views of scientists. Further ID/creationists are given to cheap cybertrickery, like hijacking domain names. Richarddawkins.net is the Richard Dawkins Foundation website. Richarddawkins.org redirects to the website of Access Research Network a pseudoscientific creationist quack's haven. These are some of the many methods that creationists use that marks them out as deniers.

The Kitzmiller trial in Dover, PA also ruled that ID was NOT science. Despite claims to the contrary by many IDers that the judge, John Jones, is a liberal in black robes, he is a Republican, placed in office by George W. Bush, endorsed by Senator Rick Santorum (perhaps the most conservative Senator during his term), worked in Santorum's campaign, and ran for office as a Republican. Judge Jones simply ruled on the overwhelming evidence presented. Read the transcript of the trial to see how pitiful the creationist side came across, or for a better read, Debo's book 'Monkey Girl' on the trial.

"evolution is a fact!"
I suppose these Darwinist are convinced that if they keep repeating this mantra over and over again then the entire world will be cast under their spell and believe. I am probably in the minority, but I teach my students that macro evolution isn't even a scientific theory since it can't be tested or falsified. Actually, I think it has been falsified, but the Darwinist faithful don't think so. The Cambrian Explosion alone should have falsified this nonsensical hypothesis.
Darwinist are so very scared that their hypothesis is so weak that it can not stand up to scientific scrutiny. These fundamentalist scream "religion" every time someone scientifically questions their faith in Darwinism.
Here is a suggestion to these fundamentalist: You might have to actually provide some evidence for MACRO evolution if you want to convince the world that you have a rational scientific theory.

I suppose if I assumed all the people in favor of ID were credible and all evoluionists were illegitamate i'd have quite an impressive presupposed argument as well. As long as evolutionists assume the other side are "quacks" off the get go, we'll get no where. Name calling, i'm sure, is a great way to impress people and degrade an argument, but its not all that scientific. No one is trying to discredit science, I think we'd all just like to see a theory either upheld or criticized in the classroom. If evolution is so untouchable, let it be criticized

Royse87, you're forgetting that "science and discovery" has gone through its motions, and its outcome was evolution.

Science has no problem adjusting and seeing things in a different light once evidence presents itself... but scientific community wont accept a magical sky creator because there's no evidence.

They've considered it... seen no concrete evidence, and moved right along.

There's no problem criticizing the details of evolution, but ID AKA Creationism can't be taught as a viable alternative in public schools.

Churches and parents are welcome to confuse the hell out of their children and tell them that a magical man made the world, but science will never, and should never accept that... unless the evidence presents itself =)