Category: academic freedom
|May 30, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Evolution, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, News|
From Nicholas Kristof at New York Times, who has just discovered that most “liberals” don’t agree that close-mindedness is a bad thing (he wrote about it recently, and now follows up): Third, when scholars cluster on the left end of the spectrum, they marginalize themselves. We desperately need academics like sociologists and anthropologists influencing American […]
|May 26, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, News|
Every so often, Richard Dawkins hits the target. Here’s his take on the junior jackboots of Asshat U Washington Times: “There seems to be a tendency among some students – perhaps the less intelligent – to suppress free speech,” Mr. Dawkins said in an interview with the Australian on Monday. “I hope it doesn’t last […]
|May 26, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Climate change, Culture, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, News|
The global warming hype, unlike the nutrition freakout or the far side of Darwinism, could actually be true. But the behaviour of the proponents tells against that. From Willie Soon and István Markó at : Increasingly, we are seeing more and more outrageous and aggressive anti-scientific claims that anyone who is not willing to embrace […]
|May 19, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, News, Science|
From Mark: The point I made – about the criminal enforcement of state ideology – has since been reinforced by the disgusting behavior of 20 (so far) attorneys-general from California to the US Virgin Islands ganging up to investigate and charge “climate deniers” for the crime of holding a different opinion and exercising their First […]
|April 28, 2016||Posted by PaV under academic freedom, Climate change, General interest, Intellectual freedom, Media|
Here’s a link to an article from American Thinker that details how, in Ohio, the Univ. of Cincinnati did a three year study on the effects of oil-well “fracking,” the results of which demonstrate no contamination of ground water had occurred because of “fracking.” And then the study was quashed.
|April 22, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Climate change, Global Warming, News|
Following on: Bill Nye open to jail time for climate change skeptics, from The Federalist: But Nye isn’t just speculating about putting people in jail. He is referring to a specific attempt to use the model of those old tobacco lawsuits to prosecute any company that has ever funded research or advocacy skeptical of claims […]
|April 20, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Climate change, Global Warming, News|
A thought re Barry Arrington’s thread, MIT Atmospheric Physicist Explains What Everyone Should Know about Climate Alarmism: Maybe we are missing the real problem: In itself, global warming is just the latest a-crock-alypse by which green daycare moms compete in the middle class virtue stakes. And swindlers get rich. But what’s new there? We can […]
|April 15, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Climate change, Intelligent Design, News|
Readers will remember the “science guy”: From Reason: As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen… So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like […]
|March 31, 2016||Posted by vjtorley under academic freedom, Culture, Intelligent Design|
Your Excellency, I humbly ask you to strike a blow for academic freedom, free speech and religious freedom, by publicly forbidding Marquette University from calling itself a Catholic university henceforth, and by revoking the mandate of theology teachers at Marquette University to teach theology. In this letter, I’d like to explain why I believe these […]
|March 24, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Intellectual freedom, Science|
From (lawyers) David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman here: We help scientists, writers, businesses and others targeted for speaking out on scientific issues and policy to defend themselves. Yes, but who needs free speech when we’ve got Science? 😉 Most recently, their target is the Climate change bureaucracy (March 23, 2016): Assuming the […]
|March 11, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Climate change, Intelligent Design, News|
From Breitbart: US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from […]
|March 4, 2016||Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Evolutionist inquisition over Chinese scientists mentioning “Creator” force PLOSOne retraction.
|February 12, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, News|
From TENURE: Fact or Fallacy?: In the last 18 of my 27 years of practice I have focused on representing faculty, staff and students at state and private universities. I have discovered and confirmed that tenure at state universities only protects what needs no protection. Tenure in essence only protects professors who the administration does […]
|February 4, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Darwinism, Intellectual freedom, News|
From Evolution News & Views: February 12 is almost upon us. It will be Darwin Day, anniversary of the great man’s birth, which we call Academic Freedom Day in homage to Darwin’s wise warning that “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of […]
|December 19, 2015||Posted by News under academic freedom, Culture, Darwinism, News|
Must be. The servers may have gone down, downloading info re his grants. Readers will recall that Matzke, a long-time commenter here on behalf of the Darwin lobby, now at Australian U, was shortly afterward accused by John West at Evolution News & Views for using NSF grant money improperly, for a political purpose (to undermine […]
|December 16, 2015||Posted by News under academic freedom, Darwinism, News|
In an article in National Catholic Reporter on academic freedom, journalist Menachem Wecker tells us, Contrary to popular belief, academic freedom isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. Instead, it guarantees that professors can only be dismissed for cause, ascertained by a hearing of their peers. Okay, but in these times, “cause” doesn’t mean very much, does it? […]
|December 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Education, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
The core challenge being addressed (as we respond to abuse of a critical thinking curriculum) is the notion that belief in the reality of God is a culturally induced, poorly grounded commonplace notion. An easily dismissed cultural myth or prejudice, in short. Let us remind ourselves of the curriculum content used by teachers in a […]
|December 3, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
In further addressing the curriculum abuse that sought to induce twelve year olds to imagine that belief in God is little more than a culturally induced ill-supported notion, it is critical to address the favoured ideology, evolutionary materialist scientism and/or its fellow travellers. For, never mind the lab coat clad magisterium, evolutionism is self-referentially incoherent […]
Is the view that there is a God little more than a poorly supported, culturally induced commonplace notion?
|December 1, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Education, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Yesterday, I highlighted a case in Texas in which a School-level Critical Thinking Curriculum has been manipulated to set an assignment (in a section for 20 points) gives a question requiring the answer that “There is a God” is not fact or credible view but a cultural commonplace, poorly supported and dubious assertion that apparently […]
Again, mere disagreement on your part does not constitute what criticalthinking dot org terms :
>>cultural assumption: Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we perceive, conceive, think, and experience within assumptions we have taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving “things as they are,” not “things as they appear from a cultural vantage point”. Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions so that we might critically examine them is a crucial dimension of critical thinking. It is, however, a dimension almost totally absent from schooling. Lip service to this ideal is common enough; a realistic emphasis is virtually unheard of. See ethnocentricity, prejudice, social contradiction.
prejudice: A judgment, belief, opinion, point of view — favorable or unfavorable — formed before the facts are known, resistant to evidence and reason, or in disregard of facts which contradict it. Self-announced prejudice is rare. Prejudice almost always exists in obscured, rationalized, socially validated, functional forms. It enables people to sleep peacefully at night even while flagrantly abusing the rights of others. It enables people to get more of what they want, or to get it more easily. It is often sanctioned with a superabundance of pomp and self-righteousness.
Unless we recognize these powerful tendencies toward selfish thought in our social institutions, even in what appear to be lofty actions and moralistic rhetoric, we will not face squarely the problem of prejudice in human thought and action. Uncritical and selfishly critical thought are often prejudiced.
Most instruction in schools today, because students do not think their way to what they accept as true, tends to give students prejudices rather than knowledge. For example, partly as a result of schooling, people often accept as authorities those who liberally sprinkle their statements with numbers and intellectual-sounding language, however irrational or unjust their positions. This prejudice toward psuedo-authority impedes rational assessment. See insight, knowledge>>
. . . on our part.
In the words of the Apostle Peter c 65 AD as he awaited unjust execution at the hands of Nero Caesar on the false accusation of treasonous arson against Rome on the night of July 18, 64 AD:
>>2 Pet 1:3 I think it right, as long as I am in this body,[h] to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . .
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.>>
I hardly need to add that millions down through the ages and today jointly testify to and manifest the life transforming consequences of encounter with the Living God through penitent trust in the risen Christ.
Where, again, disagreement on your part does not constitute absence of evidence on our part of personal knowledge of God through living encounter with the risen Lord and Saviour Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. If just one of these millions testifies truly, that is enough. And in fact there are literally millions of credible witnesses, who do not manifest the characteristically disintegrative signs of delusion.
(Nor, is it appropriate to spring an implicit, highly tendentious denunciation of the Christian worldview on twelve year olds in a classroom while using state power to lock out the right of reply by responsible and informed representatives of this major tradition. As can be seen from the common abuse of the clause of the 1st Amdt of the US Constitution that, properly understood on its history means that there is to be no State Church of the USA, via the dubious radically secularist doctrine separation of church and state, that then gives de facto establishment to the lab coat clad anti-church of evolutionary materialist scientism.)
Thirdly, we now need to begin to think in worldview terms, and to understand that worldviews stand on finitely remote first plausibles that by virtue of our circumstances must be finitely remote, should be factually adequate, logically and dynamically coherent, should not unduly beg key questions and should be explanatorily adequate — not simplistic and not an ad hoc patchwork, but powerful, balanced and elegant.
It cannot be turtles all the way down:
And so, we see the alternatives:
In this context, we all have finitely remote faith points that should be assessed on comparative difficulties, rather than being led to make snap dismissals of core propositions as popular but ill-founded notions.
Of course, a full-orbed assessment of worldviews and options, even at 101 level is beyond the typical twelve year old. That is part of why this should never have been put in such a curriculum. Indeed, such attempts will backfire, forcing church leaders to indoctrinate youngsters in the rhetoric of retort by programmed talking point backed up by instructions on referral to legal swat teams.
And again, disagreement on your part with worldview first plausibles of ethical theism in the Judaeo-Christian tradition on our part does not give reasonable grounds for holding that we have “no evidence” or no good reason.
So, already, it is quite evident that such ethical theism is not a mere culturally propagated commonplace, ill supported notion.
Okay, this is enough for a first bite at the issue. More to follow in coming days. END