Textbook threatiness
by KrauzeA sense of imminent danger can be useful in the right circumstances, rousing people to work together at solving a problem or fighting an enemy. But as everyone who has read "The Road to Serfdom" knows, this situation can lead to even bigger problems. As the initial threat is disposed of, the witch hunters will want to stay in charge. The fanatics you embraced to "get things done" will start looking for ever-smaller nuisances, and are soon attacking the very thing you tried to protect in the first place.
In the post-wedge world, there is no threat of intelligent design being taught in schools. So now would-be witch hunters have to direct their gaze inwards:
[Biology professor Jim Sparks] is upset about the new text his peers at VCU have chosen for him to use in teaching Biology 101. Sparks says it omits critical chapters in evolutionary theory and is biased toward creationism and intelligent design, which argues life is too complex to have evolved over millions of years solely through Darwin's theory of natural selection and must have come at the direction of a supreme being or a supernatural force.
The book Sparks faults is "Essentials of Biology" by prolific science writer Sylvia S. Mader and published by the mainstream McGraw-Hill press.
Now even a mainstream textbook like Mader's "Essentials of Biology" is thought to have been compromised by the forces of darkness. So, what's Sparks' complain? The book mentions the Institute for Creation Research!
[Sparks] also soon learned that one of his colleagues who pushed for the book has strong creationist ties and that the text has also been picked up by Oral Roberts University. And in the chapter called "Darwin and Evolution" on page 230, he found a direct reference to the California-based Institute for Creation Research, stating that the organization "advocates that students be taught an 'intelligent-design theory.'"
Even though the book clearly states that intelligent-design theory does not meet the test of scientific theory, despite that nearly half of all Americans believe the Old Testament account of creation, Sparks says the mention of the institute is disturbing. "It's product placement," he says, "like when Tom Cruise drinks Pepsi in the 'War of the Worlds.'"
Note how Sparks is using the classical tricks: An unnamed colleague has "strong creationist ties" (never mind that the book was approved by a number of professors, including Sparks himself, who hadn't bothered to read it), and the book was adopted by televangelist-founded Oral Roberts University - obviously, if the enemy approves of it, it must be evil. There is even some hint at a conspiracy on the part of Mader; if there's some product placement for Pepsi in a movie, it must be because Pepsi coughed up the dough for it. So who paid for the Institute for Creation Research to be "featured" in a biology textbook, and who did they pay it to?
I suppose this attack on publishers on biology textbooks is only expectable. It's less than two weeks ago since we saw Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project, being attacked for publishing a book defending theism, and just yeasterday I blogged about the reaction to a historian of science who dared suggest that people like Richard Dawkins was hurting the fight against creationism. I wonder who the next person will be to draw the wrath of the witch hunters?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Comment by MikeGene — June 27, 2006 @ 12:20 am
June 27th, 2006 at 3:05 am
I just found the perfect description of what I was trying to convey, from ID critic Lenny Flank at PT:
Comment by Krauze — June 27, 2006 @ 3:05 am
June 27th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Is this even accurate, or is it a not-so-subtle attempt by he author to enforce the ID=Creationism stereotype?
Creationists believe that "creation science" is science and should be taught. Why would they recommend the teaching of ID when they have creation science?
Comment by Mung — June 27, 2006 @ 10:53 am
June 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
VCU said they don't have anything against evolution, McGraw-Hill said they don't have anything against evolution, and Sparks said he'd teach the course with the text.
How much more of a non-story can you guys get?
"This just in: Creationism is still seriously dead."
Comment by edarrell — June 27, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
June 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Hi Ed,
"How much more of a non-story can you guys get?"
Apparently one that Eugenie Scott found it necessary to comment on.
Comment by Krauze — June 27, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
June 28th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Oh, several people commented on the thing a couple of weeks ago, when it was a three-day controversy. My point is that the issue is dead. The scientists got together, found a solution, kissed and made up. How much more of a non-story can you get than several-days-old news that isn't even accurate any more?
Most creationists are about 30 to 40 years behind in science. You guys are usually more up on things as they happen. This issue is dead and gone.
Comment by edarrell — June 28, 2006 @ 12:23 am
June 28th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Hi Ed,
If there's any new developments in the case, Google News doesn't mention it. Considering that you have a record of playing hard-and-fast with the truth, maybe you could offer a link to a news story?
Comment by Krauze — June 28, 2006 @ 3:58 am
June 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Keep deluding yourselves. Wishing it to be true does not make it so. We all know that beliefs can be and have been changed. So why is the belief that the Darwinian story is inadequate still prevalent? Could it be because the storytellers have not told a compelling story?
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2006 @ 9:39 am
June 28th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Krauze,
This was a very instightful post. Something that would not have occured to me had you not pointed it out. Your Serfdom reference was right on. I think you and Mike have been prophetic! Thank you.
I would welcome speculations of how the landscape may unfold in the post-wedge world.
Salvador
FYI:
I wanted to inform you an IDEA chapter was being planned for VCU, but because the students involved were biology majors, for their safety we decided otherwise (Virginia apparently is a hotbed for ID at the college level!).
However, my informants at VCU tell me several of the tenured, near-retirement pro-ID Chemistry faculty are openly disdainful to the anti-ID bio faculty. Threatiness comes in all forms!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2006 @ 10:26 am
June 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
No, all my correspondence after June 15 is private, so I can't offer a link to any news article. Sorry, Krauze. Perhaps you could write to Mr. Sparks to see what he says, or check with NCSE, or with McGraw-Hill, or with Virginia Commonwealth U.
Or, if you think the thing is still alive, perhaps you could offer a link to a news story? No, you noted that's not the case.
Maybe next time, before taking a two-weeks-old story, you could check to see if there were any new developments?
Comment by edarrell — June 30, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Mr. Cordova, are there more ID advocates at Virginia universities than there are UFO advocates? Are there more ID courses than UFO courses?
Comment by edarrell — June 30, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Sparks got canned!
Virginia Commonwealth University professor canned
I'm sure this had nothing to do with his anti-creationist views in a state (Virgina) that got a D- in Darwinism from the Fordham Foundation, and a state with more IDEA chapters than any other, and a state that hosted the world's biggest YEC mega conference in 2004 only a few hours from VCU. No siree bob, creationists had not a thing to do with Sparks dismissal.
I would presume it's just as the Dean himself said:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 9, 2006 @ 10:58 pm