It appears that Oklahoma legislators are continuing their attempted crackdown on University of Oklahoma for the outrage of allowing evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University speak to its students. After proposing two resolutions denouncing the scheduled appearance, legislators are now demanding answers about the funding and communications with Dawkins. It appears that the legislators would like the school to pull speakers from the renown Institute of Creation Science than that glorified correspondence school, Oxford University.
The announcement of the speech led to two resolution denouncing Dawkins and the theory of evolution “an unproven and unpopular theory.”
Now, unable to coerce the university to drop the speaker, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton has reportedly demanded information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard, including a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, the total cost to the university, and an account of any “faculty time spent promoting this event.”
Here is the language of the earlier resolution on the speech:
A Resolution expressing disapproval of the actions of the University of Oklahoma to indoctrinate students in the theory of evolution; opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry, not indoctrinate students in one-sided study and thinking; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma has, as evidenced on the departmental homepage, been framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of the sciences; and
WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s controversial theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to further the indoctrination engaged in by the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma by presenting a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives hereby expresses its disapproval of the current indoctrination of the Darwinian theory of evolution at the University of Oklahoma and further requests that an open, dignified, and fair discussion of this idea and all other ideas be engaged in on campus which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.
This appears to be Oklahoma’s bid to displace Texas legislators (here and here) in gutting any academic credibility in the area of higher education.
For the story, click here.
I love this part: “Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution … are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma.” College students should be exposed only to statements that the majority of the population agrees with.
Also, although, apart from this reference to “The God Delusion,” the resolution does not mention Dawkins’ atheism, I suspect that that is a more important impetus for the resolution than is Dawkins’ teaching of evolution.
Most disturbing.
In my opinion it comes down to whether Dawkins’ speech was scientific in nature or just another of his atheist / anti-theist “revivals.” If the former, than the OK Legislature is in the wrong; if the latter than they’re in the right, unless the university also brings in theists as well.
If the Liberals want religion silenced, then they have be forced to accept that things like Secular Humanism and other forms of atheism must also be silenced in the public sphere.
…and now the horde of atheists here will start flaming, may the Gods fail to have mercy on their blighted souls
jonolan:
“If the Liberals want religion silenced, then they have be forced to accept that things like Secular Humanism and other forms of atheism must also be silenced in the public sphere.”
*******************
I don’t think Dawkins or any atheist wants religion silenced, just held to the same standards of critical discourse it’s been immune from for centuries. Enough of the free ride. Let it defend its philosophy and actions like every other institution does. Personally, I want to hear about that talking snake and flying without need of aircraft.
I disagree mespo. It seems to me that a lot of atheists – Dawkins’ not included – want religion silenced in the public sphere as opposed to your desire for debate with or insult its adherents.
It may stem from a difference in opinion on the meaning of the Establishment Clause, or it may just be “theophobia,” to misuse the word in the same fashion as so many others are.
But as I said, my opinion on the actions of the OK legislature is entirely dependent upon the nature of Dawkins’ address and whether or not the university has had or intends to ever have speakers with countering viewpoints if Dawkin’s address was other than just on the specifics of evolutionary biology.
…Of course I don’t have a particular axe to grind in the matter. I’m a theist who believes in many of of the tenets of Evolution.
jonolan
You may disagree, but you’re still wrong. We atheists only want adherence to the Constitution for the protection of religion and protection from it. Our objective is not to silence religion is the “public sphere”, as you state, but only on or in public property when the clear intent is to dilute or circumvent the Establishment Clause. Publically debating religion is covered by Freedom of Speech. Using a legislative body to promote or control a particular religious view is a violation.
You know I made and was upbraided for making comments about Texas being loony, on another thread. Seeing this I’ve got to take it back. Oklahoma is every bit as crazy as Texas and yeah so it the rest of the “bible” belt. I’m not a Dawkins fan, but his book “The Selfish Gene” was a ground breaker. He is not the issue though, the issue is that some in the Oklahoma Legislature do not want OU to have speakers that disagree with their religious viewpoints. This is a pander for votes coming from belief in the gullibility of their populace. As such it is cynical and an unconstitutional abridgment of OU’s rights to maintain a forum for thought.
Jonolan, as usual you use tortured logic and disingenuous points to express you own highly unique viewpoint. If you don’t understand the actions of the legislature and their obvious motivation, then you are either dumb or lack critical self awareness. Since I think that’s not the case you’re merely being your same old self again, annoying and peculiar.
Although Oklahoma once supported a fairly progressive kind of populism, it’s basically a state that was stolen from Indidnas and has been pretty backward ever since. Free speech means accommodating ideas that are uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean that those ideas have to be forced on the University by the legislature, however. My own take is this–let OK fall ever backward. Yes-that’s a mean thing to do to people who arean’t paleos who live there, but if that’s the will of the people let it becaome a backward place that truly fails to evolve. It will lose jobs and once the oil gives out, it will turn to dust, and in the process , prove how evolution and natural selection really operate.
Mike S.
It’s no secret how I feel about Texas and Louisiana. Although the longest I’ve ever spent in Oklahoma was six months in Tulsa, I have to say OK and TX are cut from similar if not the same cloth. Louisiana is an entirely different kind of loony. On the topic of a speaker though, I don’t know if banning Dawkins will interfere with OU’s primary role for the state – a substitute for an NFL franchise. I’ve always considered OU (and OSU) just farm team schools.
Buddha,
“a substitute for an NFL franchise.”
That is funny and sadly true.
I teach evolution and also have a separate course that includes a review of the antipathy toward evolution in the U.S. Christian creationists are waging all out war against teaching of evolution. This is part of a much wider effort to eliminate the separation clause of the first amendment. These people want to make Christianity the official religion of the U.S. only it has to be there conservative fundamentalist evangelical form of the religion. These intolerant religious fundamentalists want a new constitutional convention to eliminate the separation clause and they are only two states short of the approval by 3/4 of the states (Latest Church and State from Americans United). This is a very dangerous situation and people are distracted now from this issue. If it succeeds we are going to be in a world of hurt.
Contrary to the misinformation in the Oklahoma resolution evolution is not doctrinal dogmatism. It is based on an incredible mass of scientific evidence. This resolution will further divide fundamentalists from the rest of the nation causing strife. To see what happens when creationists in the form of “intelligent design” cause when they come to small communities to instill their views, I recommend, “The Devil in Dover” by Laurie Lebo. This shows how people will turn on each other and cause great harm to a community in the name of the Christian religion. These fundamentalists do not speak for Jesus, they just think their views are the truth and they will stop at nothing to make this country a theocracy. I find the whole situation very scary, it is not comical nor laughable in any way. These religious people intend to undermine religious tolerance in this country and have been successful. I find it incredible that this kind of intolerance and ignorance has such force in the 21st century.
PS to previous comment. Sorry about the typos, I thought I would get a chance to preview my comment before it was submitted.
Phrog:
I understand your sentiments, but I think you overstate the case. I am sure some Christian literalists and the Dominists envision the world you fear. Most churchgoers have no such design. While some are easily swept into this religious frenzy, most aren’t. As proof you need only look to the recent election where in a nation 79% religious, the least religiously grounded candidate easily won. At its essence, the challenge is to convince the vast majority of churchgoers that our democracy trumps their superstition. It seems a daunting task, but after all isn’t that the challenge that democracy faces everywhere it exists on every day.
Jonalon, Mespo is correct.
Religious folks have as much right to express their views publicly as anyone else. The problem is that many of Christian fundamentalists want to make their views the law of the land; they are the ones trying to indoctrinate young people in public schools; they are the ones trying to silence others including secular humanists and atheists.
Religion can and should be taught at home and in the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. It is a parental right to educate their children in terms of their religious beliefs. Religious teaching is not the purpose or function of the state. Contrary to the expressed views of many fundamentalist Christians, this nation was not founded on Christianity. The leading founding fathers were mostly deists and they deliberately left religion out of the constitution other than the separation clause of the first amendment. Jefferson, Madison, and Adams did not want the religious intolerance in America that existed elsewhere in the world. Sadly we have a lot of intolerance in the U.S. today, especially from fundamentalists of many religious faiths.
One sad point to note: The FAA operates out of Oklahoma City; here’s hoping the OK legislature doesn’t try to convince them that planes fly because of the angels resting on their wings.
Mespo,
I did not intend to imply that the majority of church attendees in this country have such designs; rather I intended to imply and said it was a major part of fundamentalist Christian views. The Southern Baptists and the followers of James Dobson, the Family Research Council, and others number in the millions and they do advocate theocracy in this country. They also advocate eliminating the separation of church and state provision of the first amendment, and many of them want this country to be a Christian theocracy. Perhaps the less extreme Christians should speak out against this attack on the constitution and the first amendment. Some of the Unitarians have done so. It is time for other less extreme Christians to speak up and counter the religiosity of the extreme groups. During the Bush administration these people had power and I am concerned that they still exert undue influence over the current administration. The office of faith based initiatives is headed by a fundamentalist and there has been no statement since elected from President Obama that he will discontinue Bush policies allowing discrimination in hiring practices of these groups when they take federal monies. If the vast majority of Christians disagree with the extremist fundamentalists, why do they not speak up? Silence is complicity.
Phrog:
It is an anathema to most people to recognize that those with whom they agree can be extremists. It calls one’s own beliefs into question, and that, my friend, is the terror that most people fear most of all — whether they recognise it as such or not.
Mike S.,
You are correct. I also have to add Oklahoma to the Texas, Florida and Louisiana list of crazy states. This resolution is evidence that the creationists don’t just want to get rid of science, in the current form of evolution, but they want to make Christianity the new State religion. If we listen to these science illeterates, we will have a new Taliban like government. It seems that Taliban type government is already in place in Oklahoma. I guess when one of the horrible twisters comes through Oklahoma, it is God’s wrath that is causing it.
Mespro,
Your comment: “It calls one’s own beliefs into question, and that, my friend, is the terror that most people fear most of all — whether they recognise it as such or not.”
That is very insightful, well said.
Here’s contact info. for Ms. Hamilton:
Contact: State Rep. Rebecca Hamilton
Capitol: (405) 557-7397
Phrog,
There’s a lot of truth to what you wrote. I pretty much lived in Norman for several years. This is what liberals call: “the Okie madness!”
This is scary. Norman’s an interesting town as evidenced by all kinds of writing on the bathroom walls near/on campus. “I’m a lesbian”, followed by “you’ll go to hell” followed by “Jesus loves you” etc., along with a very militant “keep your christianity out of my life” movement that most really conservative places have. Some of the strongest opponents of crossing the church state line are in the most conservative places. It’s in your face, there’s no backing down. If you want scrappy fighters for justice, these places are good ones to find people in.
Phrog,
I cannot wholly disagree with you. There are plenty of adherents to the Abrahamic faiths who want a theocracy in America.
I disagree with these people as much as I disagree with the anti-theists who believe that religion should only exist in home and in the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.
I do believe that religions – in number far beyond just the Abrahamic faiths – should be in the public sphere, as long as none or any are endorsed or required by “the State.”
In education, I have a preference for teaching evolution, but putting forth the caveat that Intelligent Design also addresses this and that neither random chance nor divine providence can be proven.
LOL Sadly for my detractors, I’m not as radical as they wish me to be.
Sad and very scary.
All I can say is that a good many speakers from the conservative side of the aisle are banned from certain universities.
Academia should entertain all sides of an argument and dismis them or accept them on the merits not religous or political beliefs/preconceptions.
Bron98:
“Academia should entertain all sides of an argument and dismis them or accept them on the merits not religous or political beliefs/preconceptions.”
*************
What if a scholar showed up to argue that human reproductive biology is a myth and that children were brought to parents by storks; what if someone wanted to argue that gravity is only a temporary phenomenon and that we should expect to go floating off to Venus in the next millennium; what if a scholar wanted to argue falsely that a well known professor at the college was a pedophile? Should all arguments be given equal footing? Isn’t there just a finite amount of time for students to learn and why should they have to waste their time parsing out unreasonable propositions. The problem with most conservatives, in my opinion, is that they are enemies of reason and appeal only on some emotional level. Patriotism, religion, or Mom are their staples, not reasoned debate. There are some notable exceptions, but it should tell you something that the intellectual center of the movement is the manned by Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck–none of whom earned even an undergraduate degree. And both Beck and Limbaugh are recovering (?) substance abusers who decry the same in others. Maybe there is an over-emphasis on credentials, but these guys are not qualified to run the local Wal-mart much less a movement of well-meaning souls who simply want to have some understanding of how the world works. Remember how you entered our little discussion group here. Do you think your emotional arguments were any worse than those offered by the three mental midgets actually running the Republican Party. I don’t!
Good debate, please continue.
Good debate, please continue.
Mespo, your assessment of Limbaugh et al. is correct. What astounds me is how learned conservatives with advanced degrees in various fields can call those radio ‘personalities’ smart and intelligent. Limbaugh and Beck have failed at everything they have tried that required more that the rudimentary understanding they ‘might’ have garnered from their primary and secondary educations.
Well said Mespo. Bron98, I am still trying to remember which legitimate conservative speakers are banned at “certain” universities. Who are they and which certain universities?
The problem, of course, is that the OK house is trying to introduce theology into the discipline of science. What would occur if the OK legislature would insist that atheism be included, as an appropriate theory, into theology courses?
Science maintains a set of systems to distinguish between more truthful and accurate information and less accurate information: this is called the scientific method. Intelligent Design (ID) has been shown, both scientifically and legally, not to measure up in within this method. To suggest that we need to “teach all alternatives” is not substantially different than suggesting that we teach the theory that the moon landing was faked, the the earth is flat, or the the holocaust was a hoax.
Kevin Phillips is one conservative who comes to mind if you are looking for a conservative voice that is educated and not a ditto-head. Conservatism used to be a dedication to freedom, a dedication to intellectual rigor, a sensible patriotism and a hesitancy to adopt radical change. None of this was necessarily bad and as I learned in the 60’s revolution breeds its own excesses that can replace the bad with the bad, just from a different perspective.
A great historical example of the inconsistencies involved is the Puritan/Roundhead movement in England. From 1600CE to 1800CE they opposed monarchy and royalty, supported a free market and championed religious freedom for all. When some of them moved to America and found themselves in power they eschewed religious freedom and tried to control the market.
By the same token the Bolsheviks in Russia overthrew a despotic royalty and replaced it with a despotic party that equaled the horrors committed by that royalty. The question is never about ideology and always about ego, sex and the will to power.
I come from a rather radical point of view but I recognize that eventually the solutions are developed in the center. The problem in the US is that the definition of center has moved too far to the right, so that very conservative people like John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and Arlen Spector are considered almost centrist. The acceptance of the rightward drift since Reagan, of almost 30 years duration, has most Americans under 50 unsure about the real political and ideological definitions. Thus President Obama can be called a socialist without everybody guffawing.
This drift has made it possible for fundamentalist religious ideology to appear somewhat mainstream, or at least be given a voice in debates where they should have no standing. Thus we have reasonably sane people and the MSM talking about the “Science of Creationism,” which is not science and not even good theology. Also made possible are claims of the need to intertwine Church/State that are constitutionally absurd.
As long as this rightward drift remains ensconced in our national psyche we will see stupidity like this in Oklahoma and other venues that contain a citizenry ignorant of the true center of ideology and values.
Creationism and its newest incarnation, Intelligent Design (ID), are not science as Mike S. says. These beliefs are a divisive wedge being used to undermine science in favor of religion. The leading proponents of ID have as their stated goal to undermine science so that religious views can be accepted as science, the main one being creationism. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is behind much of this and they play into the religious fundamentalist movements to promote this idea. I have followed this movement for several years now and they are committed to an overthrow of scientific materialism in favor of their religious views. They are supported by a lot of money. They had a shot at getting ID taught in schools in Dover PA in 2005 but lost big in a court case that had international attention.
There is more than just eliminating the teaching of evolution, it is a long term goal to “return America to its Christian roots” and make the U.S. a Christian theocracy. This right wing movement got extra impetus in the Reagan years when the republicans took on fundamentalist views as part of the planks of their party and fundamentalists are making headway. What is happening in Oklahoma seems like stupidity to many of us, but it is part of a larger movement for control of our country in the name of religion. It is not happening only in Oklahoma. It is accelerating and we should oppose it.
Mespo:
Stork reproduction and gravity have been disproven and proven respectively and so are really not open to debate maybe some more can be learned about gravity. Wouldnt falsely accusing a professor be liable and so not really a topic for a presentation? I dont agree with the OK legislature anymore than you do but this type of business is on both sides of the aisle. Censoship doesnt know party or philosophical affiliation.
I wont argue about the triumverate of conservative “intellectual” leaders. But having or not having a degree means very little other than that you have gone through the requirements to obtain said degree. I knew many people in college that had never read an entire novel and I know many people that only read the newspaper for information, both on the left and right of the political spectrum.
I also dont believe in creationism, but I dont discount the possibility of a prime mover that set all this into motion. but I also dont discount the possibility that things are the way they are because they have to be to exist.
I agree that some things are not open to discussion, the moon is not made of green cheese and so that would have no place in a university.
And I disagree that conservatives are any more or less emotional than liberals on certain topics. And as far as I go I came I saw I got my ass handed to me and learned a little bit in the process. But I think I keep my emotions to myself now or at least I hope I do. Unfortunately it is the rare person that can operate on reason 100% of the time and is something that requires practice.
But I think that any reasonable topic should be open for discussion on a college campus. For example I know that quite a few of you dont like Justice Scalia but should he be banned from speaking at a university? I dont like Bill Ayers but I would probably go and listen to what he had to say even though I think his ideas are incorrect at best.
The light of day is the best medicine for bad ideas of any kind. But tell me who is the final arbiter for bad ideas and how does one know what a bad idea is unless it is openly discussed and debated? Less than 70 years ago it was thought by some that you could not go faster than the speed of sound or the aircraft would break up and less than 100 years ago E=MC**2 was thought to be hokum.
Knowledge should be persued to discover truth.
Phrog:
you are correct about Reagan and fundamentalists.
In defense of OU (verse Oklahoma the state), President David Boren has worked hard to transform that school:
“OU is number one in the nation in the number of National Merit Scholars enrolled per capita among public universities and is in the top five of public universities in the nation in the graduation of Rhodes Scholars. The OU Honors College is one of the largest honors programs among public universities in the United States, matching the University’s best and brightest students with faculty in classrooms of 19 or fewer students. OU is one of the few public universities in the nation to cap the class size of first-year English composition courses at no more than 19. The University is first in the Big 12 and at the top in the nation in international exchange agreements with countries around the world with 171 student exchange agreements with universities in 60 countries.”
more => http://www.linkedin.com/companies/university-of-oklahoma
Bron98:
“Stork reproduction and gravity have been disproven and proven respectively and so are really not open to debate maybe some more can be learned about gravity.”
**************
Likewise disproven are talking snakes and flight without technology, yet we allow proponents of these delusions to speak on campus. I will apply your rule, but we will see a marked decrease in Evangelicals hobnobbing with the ivy tower crowd.
“But I think that any reasonable topic should be open for discussion on a college campus.”
*****************
My point, exactly.
Mespo:
I thought it was Ivory Tower? I hope it is ivory or I have been using it incorrectly for a good long time.
Either way it is “bush” league v. “ivy” league.
Bron98,
The “prime mover” that you refer to is a religious issue, not a scientific issue. Religous issues have no bearing or relation to science and should be discussed in seminary and divinity schools, not in legitimate discussions of scientific issues.
Bron98:
It is, but I like a little variation from the banal every now and then. Maybe I should have said ivy covered walls, but hey why not a mixed metaphor?
“If we listen to these science illiterates, we will have a new Taliban like government.“ Rafflaw I agree. The fear that pervades these state legislators’ minds prohibits them from behaving logically. To paraphrase Mike Appleton, “The right wing religious are unable to think issues through two or three steps in advance.”
Mespo is that Wrigley Field your adding to the mix?
CCD:
“Mespo is that Wrigley Field your adding to the mix?”
****************
Indeed it is. I have experienced more learning there (along with angst) than any undergraduate class I ever sat through
Mespo,
You should try out the South Side Hitmen and ditch that playground called Wrigley Field.
You Chicago baseball guys equal the Bostonian’s and Cardinal fans in your zealotry. You know of course that fan is short for fanatic and so we see another fervent belief rear its’ ugly head. The difference between that and fundamentalism is that you’ll let the other team play in your ballpark.
Lol, yes comedy, tragedy, drama, and that’s just in the left field bleachers. What a fantastic field trip for the Oklahoma State Legislature, learning to live and let live.
They’d feel comfortable with the brass band too.
Raf:
if there is a prime mover, and I am not saying there is one, it would then definitely be an issue for science.
But it would appear that there is no prime mover and all of this [existance] is just a matter of probability and time.
rafflaw:
“You should try out the South Side Hitmen and ditch that playground called Wrigley Field.”
*******************
I am worried about going to a fight over there and a baseball game breaking out.
It makes absolutely no difference what topic Prof. Dawkins had chosen for his address. The selection of speakers is the function of the university, not the legislature.
EMBARASSSING.
High!! I jus wanted to feel importanat!!! But Thz Is Actually Kinda Kewl.. ___Bye BYe
High!! I jus wanted to feel importanat!!! But Thz Is Actually Kinda Kewl.. ___Bye BYe
Thank God Oklahoma isn’t a state yet!!!
(It is??)
Ohhhhh dear!!!
We’re (the USA) in biggg trouble!!!
Dakotahgeo
At least I don’t live there, though living next door to the dirt burglars is still too close.