The Little Decrees
by MikeGeneOver 150 faculty at the University of Iowa have signed The Decree started by Hector Avalos, the associate professor of religious studies at ISU. The Decree is filled with some rather muddled thinking, although it is interesting to note how it has been evolving. Yet the Tribune article offers one factoid that is most interesting.
According to William Dillon, Staff Writer for The Tribune, "The near 400 signatures accounts for about 10 percent of the faculty at the three universities." 10%? I see. So 90% of the scholars did not sign off on The Decree. Why is that? Let's run through some possibilities.
1. It is possible that many of The 90% didn't agree with something in The Decree. Perhaps there is a significant chunk who are indeed sympathetic to ID. Perhaps others had a problem with the way science was being defined. Others may have disagreed with the proselytizing tone of The Decree.
2. It is possible that many among the majority didn't agree with the principle of handing down Decrees. After all, the act of gathering signatures to re-emphasize that only mainstream viewpoints will be allowed in academic settings reminds people of the Clergy policing their flock with official statements about what the Bible or the Church teaches. In fact, I suspect the Smithsonian's treatment of Sternberg has resulted in more damage to the critic's image than they know. Lots of scholars have unconventional or controversial ideas and positions. When they see something that looks like a witch hunt, they must wonder if a precedent is being set.
3. It is possible that many in the majority did not have the time to read through The Decree. But this would be interesting given all the press this issue has received over the last few months "“ President Bush's statement, the shows in Dover and Kansas, and all the editorials in mainstream papers and science publications.
4. It is possible that many of the 90% did not know about the decree. But that would seem unlikely, given the critics' efforts to gather signatures. If this was a problem, it just means the signature gatherers were incompetent.
Whatever the explanation, the Decree authors and signature gatherers must be a little disappointed. After all the events, all the fear-mongering, and all the media attention over the last few months, they got only a paltry 10% to sign off. For example, Dillon writes:
Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at ISU and one of the three original authors of the statement that started at ISU, said the UI statement will "affirm the solidarity of the faculty of the three regent institutions in fighting the efforts (of intelligent design) proponents to undermine evolutionary theory through the use of sectarian theology."
Yes Hector, it's the Solidarity of One in Ten.
November 19th, 2005 at 5:14 am
It's 400 times more than oppose the "decree." For a half-dozen years, the Discovery Institute has spent about $2 million a year to track down people with nominal credentials in science to sign a petition "supporting" intelligent design. They have about 400 signatures from around the world (at what — $12 million invested?).
ID has the solidarity of vapor. In contrast, the petition in Iowa is rock solid.
Comment by edarrell — November 19, 2005 @ 5:14 am
November 19th, 2005 at 9:46 am
LOL. As usual, Edarrell comes to the table with nothing more than his monosynaptic reflex arc. To him, it's just a Battle of Decrees and nothing more so he reaches into the BuzzBox for argument #42. Sorry Ed, my essay has nothing to do with the DI so your point is irrelevant.
Instead, focus on an empirical fact. After all the events, all the fear-mongering, and all the media attention over the last few months, they got only a paltry 10% of faculty to sign off. Why is that?
Comment by MikeGene — November 19, 2005 @ 9:46 am
November 19th, 2005 at 9:53 am
In the next link you can see the "foul play" style of the Avalos beast:
Link
Comment by Fer — November 19, 2005 @ 9:53 am
November 19th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Mike,
I can only offer a speculation here, but I think that has merit. Even if I vigorously disagree with other philsophical viewpoints, if I were say a professor of Christian studies at a secular university, my sense of academic freedom is strengthened knowing the university is allowing study on off the wall topics such as withcraft. I may vigorously disagree with witchraft, but I may not sign a decree against it in a university context, owing to the fact I think ideas eventually rise and fall on their own merits.
Regarding Sternberg, just to make sure, NPR did an excellent piece on Sternber and Caroline Crocker as well as the IDEA club I'm a member of at George Mason University: Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 19, 2005 @ 10:14 am
November 19th, 2005 at 10:15 am
I should note 47 faculty at ISU signed a statement in support of academic freedom to discuss ID. That is significant in and of itself as these professors are openly putting their careers somewhat at risk. They are showing courage and resolve to make a stand!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 19, 2005 @ 10:15 am
November 19th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Good points, Sal. It's interesting to watch the critics move their tactics into the university setting. When it comes to the public school issue, we're talking about children who are forced to attend these schools. But in the university, we're talking about people old enough to vote, live on their own, and go to war who choose to take certain classes after paying for them. The university must balance two perceptions "“ its reputation for good teaching and its reputation for academic freedom. Both issues are very important to faculty members. Remember what Behe's chair said.
Comment by MikeGene — November 19, 2005 @ 10:46 am
November 19th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
edarrell,
Where do you come up with this $2 million figure? Please, edarrell, show me the evidence that the DI takes $2 million each year out of what must be a vastly larger budget to spend just on getting people to sign a single petition. This is absolute wackball nonsense. This kind of crazy stuff gets repeated over and over among the anti-ID crowd until it becomes accepted fact.
I have actually been to the Discovery Institute in Seattle where I met with Bruce Chapman, Jay Richards, David Berlinski and Micah Sparacio on a computer simulation project, and at other times as well. I can absolutely assure you that their modest 8th floor digs on Third Avenue do not represent an organization that can drop $12M in an effort to get some petition signatures. The power that is attributed to the DI by it's critics is wildly overestimated. It's budget is a teeny, tiny fraction of ….. well, the University of Iowa's.
Comment by Stuart Harris — November 19, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
November 19th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Sal,
You said, "Even if I vigorously disagree with other philsophical viewpoints, if I were say a professor of Christian studies at a secular university, my sense of academic freedom is strengthened knowing the university is allowing study on off the wall topics such as withcraft. I may vigorously disagree with witchraft, but I may not sign a decree against it in a university context, owing to the fact I think ideas eventually rise and fall on their own merits."
Yes, and isn't it ironic that Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at a secular university! Perhaps Dr. Avalos thinks that ID is witchcraft, but he does not have the open mind (like yours) that professors so often claim to possess.
Comment by Stuart Harris — November 19, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Looks like Edarrell couldn't handle my simple question.
Comment by MikeGene — November 22, 2005 @ 10:46 pm