Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID at the academy (now seen in 36 universities)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

here is a quote mine:

A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty

I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes…

-Bruce Alberts, December 2, 2005

Apparently, the critics of ID are taking Albert’s words to heart because 36 universities as reported by ID at the Academy have courses with ID content in them. Joseph Campana at ResearchIntelligentDesign.org is trying to track ID content in various courses at universities in the United States and elsewhere. The list I linked to was gleaned from news sources and word of mouth. If anyone is aware of corrections or additions to the list, feel free to post them here and/or contact the authors of the list.

Unlike the public schools, the universities are viewed even by critics of ID as an appropriate place to discuss ID. Niall Shanks, Eugenie Scott, and even Bruce Alberts are favorable to the idea of ID being discussed in the universities. So “ID in the Academy” is something both sides want (albeit for opposite reasons)!


Missing from the list is the course which Paul Mirecki at University of Kansas tried to form in order to (in his words) “slap the fundies in their big fat face”. He was stripped of his chairmanship when his plot was uncovered, but the Provost and President of the University of Kansas assures the public such a course could still be in the works, but it will be taught respectfully if it is taught next time around.

I should point out at GMU, the Biology 494 honors seminar in the Fall of 2005 had a large amount of ID debate in it. So perhaps that should be added to the list too. So that makes the number 37!

Salvador

PS
Something must be in the water in Fairfax Virginia (home of GMU), because 5 of the courses listed with ID content have PhD’s affiliated with GMU, and GMU is also home to a tiny band of obscure IDEA rebels headed by Christine Chenette, who studied Biology from an ID perspective at New St. Anderews College (one of the ID courses listed).

Comments
I can bear it, but it's still frustrating. I think I'll go play some Chopin. That always puts me in a better mood.GilDodgen
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
"This kind of misrepresentation causes no end of frustration." - GilDodgen "...If you can bear to hear the words you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." - Rudyard Kiplingruss
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
From Bruce Alberts: "According to intelligent design theory, supernatural forces acting over time have intervened ... at least from time to time, living things fail to obey the normal laws of physics and chemistry." This kind of misrepresentation causes no end of frustration. According to intelligent design theory, design is empirically detectable. That's it. It says nothing about supernatural forces or intervention, or violating the laws of physics and chemistry. These guys consistently misrepresent the theory in order to discredit it. This is reprehensible and reveals desperation. My dictionary gives the following definition of fairytale -- 2: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse. Alberts and his crowd are panicking, because they know that close to 90% of ordinary people don't buy the blind-watchmaker fairytale, not because they are religious fanatics, but because they have enough sense to recognize a fairytale when they hear one.GilDodgen
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Bruce Alberts: "Yet we can be certain that, without the deep understanding that will eventually come from insisting on natural explanations, many powerful cancer therapies will be missed." http://ryanduff.net/images/wordpress/chickenlittle.jpgruss
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
For the above seminar, the texts were "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology" and "Why Intelligent Design Fails" by Matt Young and Taner Eds. From what I heard, I think his main contention was the boring old line that ID is not science. He was saying that science doesn't go around trying to prove that its right, it tries to find out things about nature, blah, blah, blah. I actually went to the first meeting of the class even though I'd just graduated and wasn't eligible to attend to see how it was going to go. It looked like a good class based on discussion and guest "experts". He had an anti-ID preacher as a "special guest expert" along with a few other professors. This same preacher, Otis Young, was on a panel with Paul Nelson once when Nelson was here. The first thing he did was hand out a copy of Genesis 1-3 and tell us that this is what the whole thing is about. *sigh* It's always the other guys who are the first to bring religion into it.tragicmishap
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Here's an interesting paper on "Junk" DNA - Designed DNA? Jerry Bergman teaches biology, chemistry, and physics at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio I think the real fertile ground for an ID revelation/revolution would be on intron design.Collin DuCrâne
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
There was a short one credit seminar on ID at the University of Nebraska Lincoln this past semester. Location: Lincoln, NE, USA Instructor: Rosevelt Pardy Approach: anti-ID Misc.: Honors 395H Intelligent Design I don't know if Pardy is going to continue teaching it, but I will keep an eye out.tragicmishap
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
GMU is also home to a tiny band of obscure IDEA rebels
not to mention a fairly decent basketball team.Jon_Ensminger
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
And they think the rest of us just don't get it! Alberts' conclusion about ID: "In other words, at least from time to time, living things fail to obey the normal laws of physics and chemistry." When he manipulates cells in his laboratory, have living things failed to obey the normal laws of physics and chemistry? Design is a logical possibility which if true, does he want us blind to it? His vision of a "scientific temper" sounds like brainwashing in the academy. History shows that a small cadre of fanatic bullies can hold civilization hostage for generations. No time for complacency!Rude
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
It didn't really count as a course as having much ID content in it, but in my Humanities class last Fall we discussed evolution and "creationism" (i.e. we read short articles by Richard Dawkins and Philip Johnson).Ben Z
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply