Rumor has it that the university was not pleased with all the press IDists at our school have been receiving.
I guess the administration doesn’t like the thought of anti-Darwin heretics at that school. But they especially don’t like the fact the Discovery Institute keeps mentioning them in every Public Relations and fund raising campaign where they “mention Darwinist led witch hunts.”
Note: on the Discovery Institute Freedom of Speech Campaign they keep hammering GMU for it’s intellectual totalitarianism.
Thought Police Try To Stifle Academic Freedom
“The Darwinist inquisition is spreading,” said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think-tank researching the theory of intelligent design. “Darwinists at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Now we see that the witch hunt has turned to Iowa State University and is focused on an astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez.”
I was told, “some lady’s coming to give a talk on why scientists reject intelligent design. The university is paying her to come.”
And I did a little bit of searching. Guess what I found? The lady visiting is none other than (you guessed it) Eugenie Scott!
Could it be the Univeristy wants to justify to the public why it must conduct a witch hunt? Are they just getting Genie Scott to indirectly praise them for their intellectual totalitarianism? Well, that’s my interesting speculation for the day.
Anyway, us IDist at GMU will do our best to let everyone know what the score really is. For example, members of IDEA GMU will have lunch with Senator Santorum next week, and that same day we’re having Jonathan Wells come to GMU. And further, we’ll keep getting reporters to keep reporting on “Darwinists at George Mason University [who] have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists [like Caroline Crocker].”
Salvador
PS
For the record, Eugenie Scott is ironically, on somewhat of a truce with IDEA because she supports discussion of ID at the college level.
See my exchange with her:
Public letters between Eugenie Scott and Salvador Cordova
Since that exchange, you will see that if I have publicly criticized her, I’ve tried to be restrained. In fact, I have applauded her (yes, despite the fact we are very much at odds on the scientific issues), because of her stand on ID in the colleges.
I do not have an issue with her visiting GMU. I will do what I can to ensure she is treated courteously.
However, I do have issue however with the behavior of the GMU administration.
[ this thread is subject to moderation]
Related Posts
13 Responses to “Is GMU Trying to Justify a Witch Hunt?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hey Sal, you know that cheap tuxedo that you have. Is it flame retardant? đŸ˜€
Speaker: Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Suggested Honorarium: $2500
Speaker: Wesley R. Elsberry, Ph.D.
Suggested Honorarium: $500
GMU is willing to pay top $ for the big gun. đŸ˜€
Yes indeed. GMU has also awarded PhD’s in Environmental Science to 2 professors of Biology who are publicly professed Creationists:
Timothy Standish, Class of 1996
Gordon Wilson, Class of 2002
Wilson is a key participant in the annual Baraminology conferences which Richard Sternberg had been a part of.
Boy word travels fast. I alerted the Discovery Institute of this and 2 hours later this blog entry appears:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/336
Why would anyone conduct a “witch hunt” at George Mason? No ID advocate or other creationist there has ever published anything calling into question any part of evolution theory. What’s to hunt?
Ed asks, ” What’s to hunt?”
Professors who’ll teach students to look critically at Darwinian evolution, and possibly give students reasons to doubt Darwin and embrace ID.
Anyway, money talks. The university is paying Eugenie Scott, they are no longer paying professor Crocker. They have indicated where their vote lies with their money.
As far as publishing, do you mean, publishing in self-serving, self-perpetuating “scientific” journals no longer committed to self-correction but perpetuation of dogmatic creeds? I guess you have a point, they haven’t published in those so-called “scientific” journals.
Evolutionary biology, even by Jerry Coyne’s admission, is at the bottom of the scientific pecking order, closer to phrenology than to physics. It’s lucky it’s even regarded that highly…..
Salvador
Like I said, what’s to hunt? If you have a professor who has a track record in ID research and is willing to teach a course in it, let ’em talk. Same criteria used for any other course . . .
What’s that? You can’t find any professors with a track record in ID? Then, if they’re honorable, they won’t be teaching it, will they?
It’s good GMU votes for ethics with their money. Any other vote would be rather contrary to the memory of old GM himself.
ID people haven’t published anywhere, in any science journal. They’ve scrupulously avoided the last 15 meetings of the three biology societies that hold the annual “Evolution” meeting, which is the place people with science related to the topic would take it. ID advocates haven’t developed a testable hypothesis, haven’t tested any hypotheses, and have nothing to write up.
So, yeah, I’d expect you to try to denigrate science journals by calling them “self-serving” — but of course, that’s a slander on your part. And your claim that they don’t self-correct is also a slam, completely and utterly without evidence or basis.
I asked whether you had evidence, and got insults instead. Is that par for the ID course? No wonder GMU won’t allow it in the catalog.
Hmm, my understanding is you’re a high school biology teacher. Is that right?
Salvador
No, you’ve got that wrong, too.
Is there nothing IDists can’t get wrong when it’s written right in front of them?
Geeze, Sal — do you think you could be bested by a high school biology teacher?
I gather it’s not the first time it’s happened to you.
See, truth stands on its own, and doesn’t need government support. If a high school biology teacher stands up to you guys with the facts, she wins.
That’s part of the reason Genie Scott, with her honestly-earned academic credentials, charm and MacArthur “genius grant,” can tie up the multi-million-dollar efforts of the Discovery Institute with a small fraction of their budget. Truth wins in a fair fight.
That’s what has you guys so desperate right now, isn’t it? That courtroom in Dover is likely to be a bastion of fairness. Is that the reason for the silly, unjustified, trumped up attacks on ladies like Genie Scott?
Are there no gentlemen in the ranks of IDists, either?
Ed said in response to my question whether he is a biology teacher, he said no.
Ed, are you a teacher in the public school system or a professor in the university?
Ed wrote: “What’s that? You can’t find any professors with a track record in ID? Then, if they’re honorable, they won’t be teaching it, will they?”
Lot’s of biology professors teach Darwinian evolution without having researched it. Doesn’t stop them from trying to indoctrinate college students with Darwinian pseudo-science. Yeah, by your standards they shouldn’t be teaching Darwinism either.
Ed said, “Geeze, Sal– do you think you could be bested by a high school biology teacher?”
Well, a couple high school biology teachers have attended or support our IDEA chapter. I woudn’t think of even trying to “best” them. Some of the IDEA members will become high school science teachers if not science professors at universities or medical doctors.
Regarding the Darwinist high school bio teachers, I’d relish the opportunity to debate them. Heck, I’d even debate a university professor of biology.
Salvador
edarrell is such a predictable Darwinian drone.
What witch hunt? What ID paper? Those scientists and teachers friendly to ID and criticize Darwinism are not real scientist and teachers. Those ID papers aren’t real science.
Darwinian evolution? Now that is real science although it is not really a theory and has no basis in reality. That doesn’t matter to edarrell because he recites his Darwinian mantra 3 times a day. You ask him a question and he goes on a diatribe turning your question into a statement.
Here is another example of his jaundice view of ID while ignoring the flaws of Darwinism.
I teach high school and college, yes. No, I don’t teach biology any more (not since I was lab assistant in a graduate level course many years ago).
Why are my bona fides relevant at all? Unless, you intend it as a distraction from the single fact: There is no science behind intelligent design.
Sal, have you ever found an honestly-published paper on intelligent design that supports the idea? No, of course not.
Evolution, on the other hand, was a key part of 10,000 research papers published in the last year, and the year before that, and every year since at least 1981. Any biology teacher could open almost any issue of Science or Nature, or any of a score of biology journals, and find evidence upon which to base a well-thought out, honest curriculum on evolution.
You can’t do that with any form of creationism, including intelligent design.
When it comes to pedagogy, Sal, I’ll put my bones against yours any day. It’s intellectual and academic fraud to teach ID as science, when there is no evidence to back up the claims.
And Sal, as an active, practicing Christian, let me say your demagoguery is over the top. I am deeply offended at your insults to my faith in this thread.
Insults at a nice lady, insults to science, insults to Christians — is that all ID has?
Facts carry greater weight than the speculations passed as fact by the thought police on peer-review comittees. We don’t see strong evidence that large amounts of biological compexity evolves. The only evidence offered are printed speculations being passed off as facts. If publication and print are impressive to you, there is a very large section in the book store on fiction. Printed words do not equal fact.
And speaking of the prestigious scientific journal Nature, biology teachers could of course turn to the cover story here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html
Definitely some of the better reporting I’ve seen. :=)
By the way, what have I said that is insulting to Eugenie Scott? Find me an example and link to it and quote it in your next post.
I point the readers to Eugenie’s letter to me:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1366
So you did teach biology!
I don’t recall insulting your faith, perhaps your logic (or lack thereof), but not your faith.