Evolution news and views on me
That’s fascinating logic: apparently the widespread feeling that it is “sensible” to remove individuals of a particular viewpoint does not necessarily mean there’s a “conspiracy” to remove individuals with a particular viewpoint.
Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?
You know, I tolerate lots of people with different ideas from mine, and there is a broad range of ideas that are perfectly acceptable to me. If other scientists hold these ideas, I’m fine with that. I don’t care about religion, politics, etc.
But that’s different from saying that there are no ideas I wouldn’t tolerate. Anyone who tolerates all ideas is an idiot. Some ideas have to be opposed, some are clearly wrong, and science, if an idea isn’t supported by the evidence, it should be abandoned.
For instance, if I were a history professor making a tenure decision about a colleague and it turned out that in his free time he promoted holocaust denial, I would never, in a million years, vote to grant him tenure. Academic freedom does not mean that we have to tolerate all ideas, or that academia should never discriminate against an individual because of his ideas. Just ask Ward Churchill.
However, in the intelligent design universe, if you ever just say no to a stupid idea, it’s a conspiracy! It’s against academic freedom! Our rights are being violated!
Nope. Some ideas are stupid. Intelligent design is stupid. There is no evidence for it. It’s a campaign to insert religion into science to undermine a well-established theory, their own wedge document demonstrated this. Their views on science are unproven, politically-motivated garbage, and a professor at ISU who promoted them as a scientist representing their university would be an embarrassment – just as a professor espousing holocaust denial would be.
This is very simple. There is no conspiracy here, just the sensible rejection of debunked and ridiculous ideas, supported by no data, no original research, and with solid evidence of an organized campaign to cast doubt on evolutionary science. That is, if that’s the reason they rejected them. If it was funding, hey, that’s fine too.