I don't know if anybody's been following the stuff going on in the Wall St. Journal, but h

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

I don't know if anybody's been following the stuff going on in the Wall St. Journal, but here is some of it. Below is an opinion piece that appeared on December 6, written by Stephen C. Meyer of Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. In the next few messages are some info that is NOT contained in this piece. I would suggest you read them all before replying to any. (Thanks to Jim Lippard for forwarding this all to me.) ========================================================================== When most of us think of the "controversy" over evolution in the public schools, we are likely to think of fundamentalists pulling teachers from their classrooms and placing them in the dock. Images from the infamous Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925 come to mind. Unfortunately, intolerance of this sort has shown itself in California in the 1990s as a result of students complaining about a biology instructor. Unlike the original Scopes case, however, this case involves a distinguished biology professor at a major university - indeed, an acknowledged expert on evolutionary theory. Also unlike Scopes, the teacher was forbidden to teach his course not because he taught evolutionary theory (which he did) but because he offered a critical assessment of it. The controversy first emerged last fall after Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at San Francisco State University, was ordered not to teach "creationism" by John Hafernik, the chairman of his biology department. Mr. Kenyon, who included three lectures in biological orgins in his introductory course, had for many years made a practice of exposing students to both evolutionary theory and evidence uncongenial to it. He also discussed the philosophical controversies raised by the issue and his own view that living systems display evidence of intelligent design - a view not incompatible with some forms of evolutionary thinking. Mr. Hafernik accused Mr. Kenyon of teaching what he characterized as biblical creationism and ordered him to stop. After Mr. Hafernik's decree, Mr. Kenyon asked for clarification. He wrote the dean, Jim Kelley, asking what exactly he could not discuss. Was he "forbidden to mention to students that there are important disputes among scientists about whether or not chemical evolution could have taken place on the ancient earth?" Mr. Kelley replied by insisting that Mr. Kenyon "teach the dominant scientific view," not the religious view of "special creation on a young earth." Mr. Kenyon replied again (I paraphrase): I do teach the dominant view. But I also discuss problems with the dominant view and that some biologists see evidence of intelligent design. He received no reply. Instead, he was yanked from teaching introductory biology and reassigned to labs. There are several disturbing aspects to this story. First, Mr. Kenyon is an authority on chemical evolutionary theory and the scientific study of the origin of life. He has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is the co-author of a seminal theoretical work titled "Biochemical Predestination" (1969). The book articulated what was arguably the most plausible evolutionary account of how a living cell might have organized itself from chemicals in the "primordial soup." Mr. Kenyon's subsequent work resulted in numerous scientific publications on the orgin-of-life problem. But by the late 1970s, Mr. Kenyon began to question some of his own earlier ideas. Experiements (some performed by Mr. Kenyon himself) increasingly contradicted the dominant view in his field. Laboratory work suggested that simple chemicals do not arrange themselves into complex information-bearing molecules such as DNA - without, that is, "guidance" from human experimenters. To Mr. Kenyon and others, such results raised important questions about how "naturalistic" the origin of life really was. If undirected chemical processes cannot produce the coded strands of information found in even the simplest cells, could perhaps a directing intelligence have played a role? By the 1980s, Mr. Kenyon had adopted the second view. That a man of Mr. Kenyon's stature should now be forced to lobby for the right to teach introductory biology, whatever his current view of origins, is absurdly comic. Mr. Kenyon knows perhaps as much as anyone in the world about a problem that has stymied an entire generation of research scientists. Yet he now finds that he may not report the negative results of research or give students his candid assessment of it. What is more, the simplistic labeling of Mr. Kenyon's statements as "religion" and the strictly materialistic view as "scientific" seems entirely unwarranted, especially given the philosophical overtones of much origins theory. Biology texts routinely recapitulate Darwinian arguments against intelligent design. Yet if arguments against intelligent design are philosophically neutral and strictly scientific, why are Mr. Kenyon's arguments for intelligent design inherently unscientific and religiously charged? In seeking the best explanation for evidence, Mr. Kenyon has employed the same method of reasoning as before he changed his view. His conclusions, not his methods, have changed. The problem is that in biological origins theory, dominant players currently insist on a rigidly materialistic mode of explanation - even when, as Mr. Kenyon maintains, explanation of the evidence requires more than the limited powers of brute matter. Such intellectual strictures reflect the very essence of polictical correctness: the suppression of critical discourse by enforced rules of thought. Fortunately, San Francisco State University's Academic Freedom Committee has come to a similar conclusion, ruling decisively this summer in Mr. Kenyon's favor. The committee determined that, according to university guidelines, a clear breach of academic freedom had occurred. Apparently, however, Mr. Hafernik and Mr. Kelley disagree. Mr. Hafernik has emphatically rejected the committee's recommendation to reinstate Mr. Kenyon, citing his own freedom to determine scientifically appropriate curriculum. In response, the American Association of University Professors informed the university last month that they expect Mr. Kenyon's mistreatment to be rectified. Meanwhile, as SFSU considers its response, a world-class scientist waits - yet another casualty of America's peculiar academic fundamentalism. Some Information Relevant to the 1992/1993 Science vs Creationism Controversy (Prepared by John Hafernik) The Past In 1980/1981, the Department of Biology had its first Creationism Controversy. This controversy centered on the presentation by Dr. Kenyon of creationism, then called "scientific creationism," in Biology 337 Evolution. At that time, Dr. Kenyon challenged anyone on the faculty to a debate on the merits of evolutionary theory versus "scientific creationism." There was much discussion in faculty meetings as well. Eventually the faculty voted (none opposed, seven abstentions) not to alter the description of Biology 337 to include creationism. The precedent set, in the context of the 1980 discussions, was that the Department did not support teaching creationism. When the controversy arose anew in the fall of 1992, I acted in a way that was in line with the views of the faculty expressed in 1980. The Present The present controversy began when students in Dr. Kenyon's Biology 100 class complained to me that he included unscientific material (creationism) in his lectures. They also complained about other aspects of Dr. Kenyon's class. Some points to keep in mind are as follows: 1. The Department of Biology, through its chair and biocouncil, is not saying that there should be no place for the discussion of Dr. Kenyon's philosophical views within the University's curriculum. No one is attempting to restrict the expression of his views in his personal professional endeavors. What is being said is that students in an introductory general studies science class should learn the ways of science. To mix science and the views of oneUs religion together does students a disservice. 2. The University Guidelines for Academic Freedom and Responsibility include the following statement: "Students have the right to the instruction promised them in official University publications." In this case instruction in science and not religion. Students are entitled to truth in advertizing. 3. The topic of evolution, as used in the course description of Biology 100, is not generally considered synonymous with the topic of "origins" as used by Dr. Kenyon and the Academic Freedom Committee. "Origins" is a more politically correct term used by creationists for special creation. 4. "Intelligent design" as used by Dr. Kenyon is a concept historically associated with "creationism." 5. If there is a dispute as to what constitutes science or appropriate application of scientific standards, the dispute should be resolved by those who are most knowledgeable, peers within the discipline. 6. Decisions about the specifics of the class schedule for the Biology Department must be made by the Department not by a committee composed of faculty members from other departments, nor by upper level administrators. The Published Record In their book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (first edition 1989, second edition 1993) Percival Davis and Dr. Kenyon present their views of evolutionary biology, point out difficulties they have with modern theory, and present the intelligent design paradigm as a scientific alternative. This book provides a written account of Dr. Kenyon's views on the topics he covers in his Biology 100 lectures on "origins." In my discussions with Dr. Kenyon, he suggested I read his book to learn more about his objections to modern evolutionary theory and about the scientific support for the "intelligent design paradigm." Although the words God, Creator, and creationism are never used in the work, it has been extensively criticized by biologists and philosophers of science as: (a) presenting a religious view, special creation/intelligent design, as science; (b) presenting an inaccurate and distorted view of evolutionary biology, genetics, and other areas of biology; and (c) being seriously flawed in its philosophical underpinnings. Background Information The AAUP: Creationism and Academic Freedom 1. At its 1981 annual meeting, the AAUP endorsed a resolution in opposition to an Arkansas law that called for "balanced treatment" of "creation science" and evolution in public schools. The resolution includes the following: a. "This legislation by requiring that a religious doctrine (sometimes disguised) be taught as a condition for teaching of science, serves to impair the soundness of scientific education preparatory to college study and to violate the academic freedom of public school teachers." b. "Members of college and university faculty in Arkansas and elsewhere should be able to teach and criticize freely in accord with professional standards". c. In the March-April issue of Academe, devoted to the issue of creationism, Matthew Finkin writes that the resolution allows that "The idea of special creation can be treated extensively in courses in religion, anthropology, intellectual and social history." d. In the same issue of Academe John Moore clearly shows why the claims of "scientific creationism" do not meet the test of the professional standards of science. Would the AAUP now take the position that it's okay to teach creationism as science in a general studies biology class in a public university, as long as it's taught by a tenured professor? I don't know, but it seems they would have to assess their previous stance. 2. In July-August 1993 issue of Academe, Cass Sunstein Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science discusses Academic Freedom issues on University campuses. In his article, he points out "Subject matter restrictions are part of education. Irrelevant discussion is banned. Students cannot discuss the presidential election, or Marx and Mill, if the subject is math. Schools are allowed to impose subject matter restrictions that would be plainly unacceptable if enacted by states or localities." Professor Sunstein does not specifically address the issue of teaching a religious belief as science, but the parallel to the point he makes seems clear. Legal Rulings 1. Judge William Overton in his 1982 ruling overturning the Arkansas equal time law made the following points: a. Creation science is not science but a religious belief. It is not science because it does not meet the essential characteristics of science. These characteristics of science are: 1) It is guided by natural law; 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3) It is testable against the empirical world; 4) It conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and 5) It is falsifiable. b. "The emphasis on origins as an aspect of the theory of evolution is peculiar to creationist literature." c. "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology...Any student who is deprived of instruction as to the prevailing view of scientific thought on these topics will be denied a significant part of science education. Such a deprivation through the high school level would undoubtedly have an impact on the quality of education in the State's colleges and universities including the pre-professional programs in the health sciences." d. "The application and content of the First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or majority vote...No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others." Judge Overton is clear Rcreation scienceS is religion and not science. In public institutions, students are entitled to be taught science in science classes. Teaching religion is not appropriate under the Constitution. Science, the leading journal of science in the United States, published Judge OvertonUs decision in full as a major article. 2. In 1987 the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana Law requiring that "creation science" be taught on an equal basis with evolution science (sic) whenever evolution is taught in the public schools. The court found this statute unconstitutional because the statute had no clear secular purpose, but rather was designed to promote one particular religious view. The decision appears, to the layman, to be narrower in scope when compared to Judge Overton's ruling. The lower court used Judge Overton's decision in striking down the Louisiana law without trial. Justice Powell in his concurring opinion makes some interesting points based on previous court decisions. "[C]oncepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious... These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as science or philosophy." 'Creation ex nihilo' means creation from nothing and has been found to be an 'inherently religious concept'. The argument that creation from nothing does not involve a supernatural deity has no evidentiary or rational support. To the contrary, 'creation out of nothing' is a concept unique to Western Religions." The case brought against the statute included an Amici Curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Laureates et al. refuting the claim that "Creation Science" was science. Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion relied, in part, on testimony from Dr. Kenyon that "Creation Science" is a strictly scientific concept that could be presented without religious reference and that it was accepted as valid by "hundreds and hundreds of reputable scientists." 3. In 1987, an exercise physiology professor at the University of Alabama referred to his religious beliefs in his exercise physiology course. He also organized an optional after-class meeting for his students and other interested persons wherein he lectured on Evidences of God in Human Physiology." His lecture included the notion that man was created by God and was not the by- product of evolution. The University told him to stop expressing his religious views in class or in class meetings associated with his class. He sued citing infringement of his First Amendment rights. In 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled, and the Supreme Court allowed to stand, that the University of Alabama could instruct a faculty member that he could not interject his religious beliefs into class lectures. In that decision, the court made the point that "free speech does not grant teachers a license to say or write in class whatever they may feel like, and ... the propriety of regulations or sanctions must depend on such circumstances as the age and sophistication of the students, the closeness of the relation between the specific technique used and some concededly valid educational objective, and the context and manner of presentation." ---------- The following is a letter that was sent to the Wall St. Journal by Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. It was printed, in its entirety, yesterday, along with several other letters, both pro and con. Editor December 6, 1993 Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty St. New York, NY 10281 FAX: 212-416-2658 Sir, In his op-ed piece on professor Dean Kenyon's troubles at UCSF, Stephen C. Meyer exhibits serious misunderstandings of science, academic freedom, and the creation/evolution controversy. First, either life originated naturally or supernaturally. Science is limited to only natural explanations. Yes, theoreticians in this area rely on materialist explanations: they are doing science. Kenyon's teaching of "intelligent design" is indeed religion, not science. Further, if today we don't know all the steps involved in the origin of life, this doesn't mean we have to leap to a supernatural explanation, or to conclude that evolution didn't occur, which is Kenyon's message and why he is opposed by his chairman and other scientists. Second, academic freedom also requires academic responsibility. The first responsibility is to students, who should get what they sign up for. In a biology class, students should be taught state of the art biology, not theology. Regardless of its lukewarm support in the general public, evolution is the foundation principle of biology and teaching that it didn't occur is equivalent to teaching flat-earth geography. It is not a violation of Kenyon's academic freedom to ask him to teach standard biology. In fact, he teaches his non-standard biology in upper division classes and in graduate seminars. It is only in a freshman course, where students are least prepared to understand why Kenyon's ideas are wrong, that he is restricted. Doesn't sound too onerous to me. What Kenyon is teaching, by his own admission and the testimony of students in the class, is a view of evolutionary theory exemplified in his book, Of Pandas and People, which presents "intelligent design theory," a mutation, so to speak, of scientific creationism which reflects the same religiously-inspired caricature of evolutionary theory and bad biology as its ancestor. Kenyon claims in Pandas that "two completely hybrid (sic) individuals could produce offspring exhibiting the complete range of possible skin colors," a statement breathtakingly ignorant of genetics, but "explaining" how the great range of human skin colors could arise from Noah and his family. Students deserve better. Sincerely yours, Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. Executive Director, NCSE


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank