Monday, August 07, 2006

Thus Spake Zuska Has Moved! Thus Spake Zuska has moved to a new site! Zuska is now blogging at http://www.scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/. Thanks to the folks at Seed Media Group and Scienceblogs.com for inviting Zuska to join the family! And apologies for the long delay in announcing this...I started this post on August 7 but some family emergencies intervened.  At the new blog, I'll pick up some loose threads from this site, including a follow-up on the post about Rollins President Lewis Duncan's remarks, and a response to a comment by a young woman on one of the Screen Goddess IT Calendar posts.  Hope to see you over at the new site! If you've subscribed to Thus Spake Zuska via RSS, you can continue to do so via Scienceblogs.com's RSS feed.   12:15:48 PM    comment []

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

PHC Update: Augustine Bad, Creationism Still Safe Zuskateers who've been with me since way back when might recall a little bit I wrote about Patrick Henry College.  PHC has been in the news again lately.  Seems five of the 16 professors at PHC have left.  Over the issue of intellectual freedom. Because one of them gave a speech about Augustine who, you may be interested to know, is in hell, according to PHC's president, Mike Farris.  So naturally, Christians should not talk about him.  Especially if they don't also talk about the Bible.  Or whatever.  Apparently, several of the professors could see that something like this was coming down the pike, and they made a pact that if one of them got fired, they would all quit.  One of them got fired.  Four of them quit in solidarity.  Four others did not.  I would like to note here that Jennifer Gruenke, the biology professor who teaches 7-day creationism, was not one of those who quit.  So we can all breath a sigh of relief that at PHC, the foes of Darwinian evolution will continue to be nurtured.     A short piece about the controversy in the Chronicle of Higher Education's news blog drew 65 comments, as of the time I'm writing this.  I read most of them, and I had a couple of reactions.  It isn't just us unwashed evolutionists that the Christian fundamentalists see as guilty of heresy, being an affront to all that is decent, and working against God's divine will.  Apparently, other Christian fundamentalists are just as bad - if they aren't the right sort of Christian fundamentalist.  Which is the Mike Farris sort, at least at PHC.  Though I'm guessing even he wouldn't pass muster at Pensacola Christian College.        There seems to be a serious obssession, on the part of some Christian fundamentalists, with the need for rules to prevent immoral behavior.  Umm, aren't they Christians?  So presumably they aren't interested in immoral behavior?  Here's one student: But I don’t understand why students would ever come to PHC in order to loosen rules they understand in advance—making the school just like dozens of other nominally Christian colleges, if a bit more academically rigorous. This was said to a male student who would like to be able to go to McDonald's with a girl, and not have to be questioned by the Dean or call the girl's father to explain his behavior.  Bad, bad student.  Next thing you know, he'll be wanting to take her to the Natural History Museum and look at some fossils.      Here's an exchange that begins with a student quoting another and then giving his response: “What I talked about in my post was a different system of rules, not ‘looser moral strictures.’” What would that system consist of? If it’s not looser (with the exception of your “business attire” concern), what is it? You say you’re concerned about “liberty,” so why not own up to “looser”? “When I came to PHC, dancing was allowed on campus. Students could smoke and drink not far from campus. Girls could wear halter-tops and were not fined for accidental dress code violations.” Well, I don’t understand that at all. I have been following the college since its inception, and I know that drinking and smoking have always been considered honor code violations, as long as students are under the jurisdiction of the school (which is to say any time they are not under the jurisdiction of parents). Similarly, it has always been my understanding that modest dress was required. I don’t see how halter tops are modest. I’ve been assuming you’re a man; do YOU think they’re modest? Or do you think, instead, that they are . . . interesting? What can be accidental about revealing clothing? This doesn’t sound honest to me. Back to your point: If what you say about these matters is true, I am amazed. I don’t understand the point of having an honor code or a dress code if they were truly ignored, as you suggest. If you are accurate, parents and students were egregiously misled. Love the halter top commentary here.  I'm guessing our guy who's all for strict moral standards wouldn't be able to take his eyes off a babe in a halter top because he'd find it...interesting.  Even though he clearly thinks he's a better Christian than the loose morals dude.  Bad, bad women.  Jezebels.  Always tempting men away from godliness.  Leading them to McDonald's and the Natural History Museum. They must be covered up in modest dress, in order to protect the men.  How about a burka?    “What I’m about is making PHC a better place. Why? Because this is what I think sets PHC apart: its commitment to Christ and liberty.” Personally, I don’t see how that would set PHC apart in any way from loads of other Christian schools, if by liberty you mean fewer or looser rules. Again, if that isn’t what you mean, what DO you mean? “If PHC is to be set apart by the strictness of its rules, I’m afraid there are several schools that go beyond even our standards. Is the school with the strictest standards the best?” Of course not, but PHC is the only school I know of with high academic standards AS WELL AS high moral standards – which, by my lights although probably not by yours, means requirements that include modest dress, clean speech, and so forth. Okay, Christian fundies, here's my question:  why do your high moral standards necessitate RULES?  If you have high moral standards, why don't you just go ahead and live by them?  Instead of, you know, running around checking whether or not your neighbor has violated the modest dress code.  Work on getting that timber out of your own eye, dude.  Then come chat with the rest of us about our specks.  Answer:  They MUST have rules.  And most especially, they must have very strict rules at college.  College is practice time for adult life in the world.  College is where they learn how to impose morality and strictures for behavior upon each other.  It's where they learn how to monitor the behavior and beliefs of others, rather than focusing on what values and behaviors they want for themselves.  It's where they learn how to play holier than thou.  It's where they learn that it is okay - in fact, it is God's will - to make other people believe and behave exactly as you do. How else could they grow up to be civic leaders who want to force their religion down the throats of everyone else in the nation and turn the U.S. into a theocratic police state?  Parting thoughts:  It's no secret Christian fundamentalists are anti-homosexual.  What cracks me up is they make all these rules regulating the interaction of boys and girls, men and women, at their colleges.  At Pensacola Christian College, boys and girls are not allowed to touch at all, ever.  But boys and boys - go ahead, touch all you want.  Girls and girls?  Give her a big hug, hold hands, it's okay!  If I'm a homosexual Christian fundamentalist - PHC or Pensacola Christian wouldn't be such a bad place to hang out, you know?  Although - still not such a great place to learn science.  8:35:52 PM    comment []

Friday, March 24, 2006

The Clergy Letter Project The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a nice long article, which you can't read online unless you have a subscription, titled "On the Front Lines in the War Over Evolution".  It's in the March 10, 2006 issue.  The scientific community is finally realizing the need to network with non-scientists, to do grassroots work, and especially to build alliances with clergy.  Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, recently found supporters numbering in the thousands in the Christian religious community. Mr. Zimmerman leads an effort that to date has gathered 10,300 members of the clergy to sign a letter supporting the teaching of evolution. Yay for Dr. Zimmerman and for all the clergy who have signed this letter!  Go here to learn more about the clergy letter project.  What do our friends at the Discovery Institute, generals in the ID assault on science, have to say about this? The Discovery Institute, however, discounts the clergy letter. "Religion is irrelevant to the issue," says Robert L. Crowther II, director of communications for the institute. The beliefs of clergy members, he says, do not alter the evidence for intelligent design in DNA and biological cells. That would be a fine response except that there is no evidence for intelligent design.  But here's something that will make you really sad.  According to the Chronicle article, Aside from the recent legal battles, educators point to several other signs troubling them about evolutionary education in the United States. For example, in a study published last year, Randy Moore, a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, reported that 20 percent of the biology teachers he surveyed in Minnesota include creationism in their classes and believe that it is scientifically valid. Last year Ms. Froschauer's organization polled more than 1,000 science teachers, asking whether they felt pressure to teach alternatives to evolution. About 30 percent reported that they did get pressure, mainly from parents and students. It really is a war out there.  If you think college campuses are immune, think again.  The intelligent-design movement is spreading to higher education, with some colleges offering courses on the topic and clubs sprouting up on different campuses. The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, in San Diego, has 24 chapters at colleges and universities across the United States, including Cornell and the University of California at Berkeley. The supporters of intelligent design are also moving beyond evolution to other areas of research that might mesh well with their guiding philosophy of a creative entity that manifests itself in nature. As its long-term goal, the Discovery Institute has vowed to push what it calls design theory beyond biology and cosmology into such fields as psychology, ethics, philosophy, and the fine arts. In future posts, I'd like to talk a little about what other goodies we can expect from design theory, and some of the other fun stuff its proponents have going on right now besides trampling evolution.    4:56:17 PM    comment []

Monday, February 06, 2006

Morons in Kansas and the Science of Gender Differences A bunch of good stuff from Slate... A brief bit on the ID forces in Utah A particularly depressing story about Kansas.  I really wish Phil Kline would just shut up.  Because his brand of moronism is particularly dangerous.  Teens in Kansas, remember:  no groping.  It's a crime.    This piece doesn't focus exclusively on Kansas, but there's enough Kansas in there to make me even more depressed about the state of my previous State.  Galileo Groupies  Now the miscreant ID minions are trying to claim Galileo as their very own hero.  I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't read about it.  Who would ever come up with something like this?  Those ID minions really put the "create" in creationism.  Jerks.  Leave Galileo alone, dammit! And finally, here's a piece on the new fashion of claiming boys are the gender more at risk, and all the attention to girls is totally messing up their lives.  This is a piece I wish I'd written; it so well dissects what is really going on in all this debate.  I am particularly envious of what a good job Ann Hulbert does in skewering our culture's tendency to believe that a PET scan is all you need to know about immutable gender-linked traits and abilities.  She delightfully analyzes something that has always annoyed me in the ever-more-elaborate scientific hunt for evidence of some kind of difference between the genders that can be yammered about:  no matter what the difference is, it always seems to come out better for males, even when it supposedly is something that disadvantages them - e.g., Newsweek tells us that the supposedly inefficent male brain gives rise to "kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behavior".  You'll love her comeback.  I won't spoil it - go read the piece.  It's good.      4:35:27 PM    comment []

Thursday, December 22, 2005

ID's After-Life So, with the decision in Dover in, I think we can sadly say goodbye to the teaching of Pastafarianism in the science classroom. William Saletan has a great article on the after-life of the Dover debate.  Is Creationism Destructible?. Where to go from Dover. By William Saletan. [Slate Magazine] Here's a quote: Is the pseudo-science of creationism ultimately being driven by religion? Or is this brand of religion, in turn, being driven by cultural anxieties? Is it possible to open a conversation with these folks and their kids, not in biology class but in, say, social studies? This is a very astute analysis of what is actually going on - and why creationism/ID is not going to go away anytime soon as an issue in our public schools and universities.  Inside Higher Ed weighs in as well.  The article is mostly a summary of what you might have already read elsewhere, but the comments on the article are meaty.  Some of them touch on the "what now?" issue.  Survival of the Fittest Theory. Federal judge rejects intelligent design curriculum as religious and non-scientific. [Inside Higher Ed] One of the commenters, Baktu Basix, suggests a possible new strategy for the IDealogists:  Argue that the teaching of evolution is a suppression of a student's religious belief.  Sigh.  I am sure this, and other tactics, will be deployed - for the reasons Saletan gives in the quote above.    5:51:58 PM    comment []

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Arnhart on Teaching Darwin Right now I am in too much of a hurry to say more than "go read this article and all the comments attached at the end."  It's an extraordinary discussion, thought-provoking, substantive, and covers ground I haven't seen addressed elsewhere.  I think you'll love it.  More on it later. The Fear of Teaching Darwin. Larry Arnhart wants biology students not just to learn about the father of evolutionary theory, but to read his words. [Inside Higher Ed] 4:23:54 PM    comment []

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Saletan's Fantasy Island Here's an interesting piece on the status of the anti-Darwinist/evolution wars.  Fantasy Island. The dwindling refuges of creationism. By William Saletan. [Slate Magazine]   1:46:46 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Suzanne E. Franks. Last update: 8/23/2006; 5:12:16 PM.