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.
Mespo,
You should try out the South Side Hitmen and ditch that playground called Wrigley Field.
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 🙂
“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?
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?
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.
Either way it is “bush” league v. “ivy” league.
Mespo:
I thought it was Ivory Tower? I hope it is ivory or I have been using it incorrectly for a good long time.
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.
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
Phrog:
you are correct about Reagan and fundamentalists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
Sad and very scary.
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.