Ball State U embarrassment (= asking questions is religion, not science) is U Idaho retro
|August 2, 2013||Posted by News under Darwinism, academic freedom, News|
It all happened in Moscow, Idaho (2005), but with different office furniture.
Following up on from DonaldM’s post, “Ball State Takes Stand for Philosophical Naturalism as Science – Embarrassing Us Alums, a similar thing happened to Scott Minnich Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, who was attacked by the same sort of idea-absent admins. Here’s Jonathan Wells’s account in Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design:
In October 2005, just before Minnich was scheduled to testify [at the Dover School Board trial] in Pennsylvania, University of Idaho President Timothy P. White issued an edict prohibiting the teaching of “views that differ from evolution… in our life, earth, and physical science courses.”  A week after President White issued his edict, the university hosted a seminar by Darwinist Eugenie Scott, titled “Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design.” Scientist Scott Minnich was not invited to participate.
Actually, Minnich had never taught his students that Darwinism is wrong or intelligent design is right. Quite reasonably, though, he expected the academic establishment to respect his freedom to encourage students to think critically about this subject — or at least to respond to Eugenie Scott in an open forum.
Apparently, however, academic freedom doesn’t extend to critics of Darwinism. When University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill called victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 “little Eichmanns,” the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) defended his academic freedom, reaffirming the AAUP’s commitment “to preserving and advancing principles of academic freedom in this nation¹s colleges and universities. Freedom of faculty members to express views, however unpopular or distasteful, is an essential condition of an institution of higher learning that is truly free.” But when word of President White’s edict reached Jonathan Knight, director of the AAUP’s Office of Academic Freedom, Knight said: “Academic freedom is not a license to teach anything you like.”  In the Orwellian thinking of the AAUP, all unpopular views are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Defenders of President White’s edict pointed to a “consensus” of scientists that intelligent design is wrong. But how could there be a “consensus” if qualified scientists such as Minnich and Behe are excluded from voting? This sounds suspiciously like those “unanimous” elections for which the former Soviet Union became notorious. Just as truth could not be decided by the Communist Party in Moscow, Russia, so it cannot be decided by the Darwinist Party in Moscow, Idaho.
 University of Idaho President Timothy P. White, “Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students,” October 5, 2005.
Annapurna Potluri, “Drawing a Line in the Academic Sand,” Inside Higher Ed, October 6, 2005. Available online (2013) at
“Discovery Institute Denounces University of Idaho’s Ban on Differing Viewson Evolution as Unconstitutional,” October 4, 2005. Available online (2013) at http://www.discovery.org/a/2911
 “AAUP Statement on Professor Ward Churchill Controversy,” American Association of University Professors, February 3, 2005.
John Miller, “U of I President: Teach Only Evolution in Science Classes,” Associated Press, October 6, 2005. Available online (2013) at http://www.discovery.org/a/2922