ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail. If ID were really interested in protecting people from viewpoint discrimination then surely they will be outraged by the following article Can God Love Darwin, Too?
Remember RIchard Colling, a biologist and professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois. In 2004, Colling wrote a book called “Random Designer”.
… as he said in a letter to students and colleagues this year—“I want you to know the truth that God is bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known.” Moreover, he said, God “cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of [Darwinian] randomness.”
His words however were not well received
Anger over his work had been building for two years. When classes resumed in late August, things finally came to a head. Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college.
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…
More information
Source
Hear hear. At least some Christians seem to understand St Augustine
Full story can be found at Baylor’s website :-)
Am I supposed to feel sympathy for either side? Because I don’t. Only the students lose here. The best I can hope for is that creationism and intelligent design become bitter rivals, something akin to the way Christians fought over whether wine and bread were literally Jesus’ body. Then the rest of us can just get on with our lives.
Richard Colling is a heretic. How quaint.
But he is lucky to be living in the 21st century. A few centuries ago he might well have been burnt at the stake like Giordano Bruno was along with countless others. These days that is illegal. So far.
This is what the theocrats of the Xian Dominionist movement want to bring back. Oddly enough they controlled the US congress until 2006, own the president, and have almost half of the US supreme court. We may well be watching the fall of the American empire. Bet the Roman and British empires looked similar at their ends.
Erm, that’s a 2005 story, Pim.
I was referencing the “more information” part in #206415
Richard Colling RICHARD COLLING http://www2.olivet.edu/academics/CA[…]os.php?id=14 B.A., 1976, Olivet Nazarene University Ph.D., 1980, University of Kansas
Richard Colling graduated from Olivet in 1976 with a double major in chemistry and zoology. In his Ph.D. program in microbiology and immunology at the University of Kansas, he studied infections like strep throat, contributing to the understanding of how these types of bacterial infections trigger autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. This research earned him several honors, including the Cora Downs Award for excellence in graduate research and the prestigious Kansas university research dissertation fellowship.
He then accepted a post-doctoral fellowship in molecular oncology at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, Texas, where he studied unique protein markers found on human and animal cancer cells. These studies pave the way for more effective targeting of cancer cells with fewer side effects. As a consultant, he has developed sensitive analytical tests for Bayer Laboratories and also for identifying genetically engineered crops for Pioneer HiBred Biotechnology. He has also served as a consultant for Rhone-Polenc Rohrer Pharmaceuticals purifying human hemophilia factor to treat humans with hemophilia.
At Olivet, Dr. Colling teaches microbiology, immunology, molecular biology and a general biology course for non-majors. He served as the department chairman for 23 years until relinquishing the position to devote more attention to students and research. He was recognized as faculty member of the year in 2000.
He has also written a book, “Random Designer,” which establishes a permanent place for God in the intellectual discussions regarding science and faith. He is a frequent speaker at pastor conferences, colloquia and educational settings where he speaks to the realities and limitations of science as well as the supreme value of faith. He and his wife Sally served as leaders for an ONU student work and witness trip to the jungle of Guyana, South America in 2004.
Dr. Colling and his wife have four grown sons, and several grandchildren. He enjoys racquetball and the challenge and solitude of golf. He enjoys long walks and talks with Sally along the Kankakee River trails, talking about their children, ONU students, life, love and the goodness of God. _________________________________
One slip-up in the creationist crowd and all that goodwill from above is gone.
Doesn’t this double-standard charge work both ways? It is true that to first order those who argue that Marks’s academic freedom was violated at Baylor should say the same about Colling’s academic freedom. But it is also true that those (like me) who argue that it is acceptable for Baylor to disassociate itself from whomever it pleases—and that academic freedom never means “do whatever floats your boat” should be affording the same privilege to Olivet.
Raven,
Oh brother. The dominionist movement is a small (and growing ever smaller) movement within the church, comprised mostly of a minority of a minority (postmillennialists) of a minority (hard-core reformed.) You are perhaps, quite incorrectly, lobbing anyone who argues against further separation of church and state or suggests that we are a nation founded on Christians ideals (the majority of a large group: conservative Christians) into this small group (dominionists with a ultra radical agenda.) By doing so you sound like a conspiracy theory wingnut.
Heddle you are lying. Must be a fundie cultist. The cultists always, always LIE. 1. All the leaders of the Christofascist movement are Dominionists/ReconstructionistsKennedy, Falwell, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson.
2. They own the Theocratic party formally known as the Republicans. The republican party platform in Texas is straight theocratic Dominionist party line. They control Texas from he governor on down and are merrily dismantling the secular government any way they can.
3. From the quote above, from the Cornell University think tank. “Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
4. The creationists at the Discovery Institute are part of the Xian Dom/Recon movement as well, Dembski, Behe, Meyers, etc.. Read the Wedge document on wikipedia. The creationist pseudoscience is just a tool for these guys. They really want to take over the government, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the dark ages. They say so often in writing.
They may even succeed. All civilizations and empires fall sooner or later. We can see right now how it happens. There are tens of millions of citizens pitching right in to bring it down secure in their knowledge that god is on their side. You are one obviously.
Raven,
1) We really did walk on the moon, honest! 2) The US Government did not blow up the World Trade Center. 3) The holocaust really happened. 4) Reconstructionists are not poised to take over the government and institute Mosaic law. 5) Elvis is dead.
(singing) One of these things is not like the others…
Heddle, you didn’t answer a single point I made. So you are stupid as well as a liar. That cultist voluntary ignorance does have its drawbacks.
More below. FWIW, the Christofascists don’t hide their agenda. Pretty hard to do when they have a significant fraction of the US population behind them and a huge influence on the government.
Heddle wrote:
“But it is also true that those (like me) who argue that it is acceptable for Baylor to disassociate itself from whomever it pleases—and that academic freedom never means “do whatever floats your boat” should be affording the same privilege to Olivet.”
Well, maybe. However the two situations are certainly not equivalent.
If Olivet is a private institution and accepts no government funds then supposedly they could attempt silence dissenting views with impuntiy. If they also made employees sign a loyalty statement or conform to a strict religious code as a requirement for empolyment, then perhaps advocating for evolution might be considered a violation of their code. If Colling was using the classroom to express his personal views instead of presenting real science, then of course the University might want to reasonaably prevent that. It is not clear to me if any of these things are true, but if they are, then perhaps the University might be somewhat justified in their stance.
However, trying to restrict the academic freedom of a distinguished scientist and faculty member can defiinately not be equated with pulling the plug on a fake lab with a fake grant doing fake research in order to undermine science by using the name of a reputable insititution to imply respectability. Especially if one of the people involved has already been effectively kicked out for reasons not having to do with his religious views. Tenured faculty have legal rights. Back door “post docs” claiming to do research in a nonexistent laboratory, not so much.
Raven,
Yes, your cuts and pastes from an author on a book tour promoting his kool-aid for the wingnuts is sho’nuff convincing.
However, did you read closely what you posted? The first line:
and
Nobody denies that reconstructionists/theomomists exist, Raven. I even know a few. The intellectual core of the (tiny) movement, by the way, is the uber-Reformed—if they did acquire power they would have little use for dispensationalists such as Tim LaHaye.
Wikipedia has a reasonably balanced discussion—and it points out that there are many internal critics of reconstructionism even within its base of postmillennial Calvinists. On my blog, though I am a postmillennial Calvinist, I have often posted against reconstructionism—although I’m sure you would no doubt think that such denials are smokescreens issued under instructions from the master plan.
Arguing: Beware! Reconstructionists are poised to take over the government! is like the Christian right arguing: Beware! Lesbians are taking over the schools! It sells books to the weak-minded, but has no basis in fact.
David Stanton,
Generally I view arguing ““he two situations are certainly not equivalent” as an argument from weakness.
To first order they are the same.
Those given responsibility to keep Baylor on its mission have, in my opinion, a right to say, even to a tenured professor, you can do that, but you cannot use Baylor’s name.
Those given responsibility to keep Olivet on its mission have a right to say you cannot teach such views in our classrooms.
(Irrelevant aside: I wonder if Colling is tenured—many Christian colleges do not have a tenure system. Also irrelevant: I personally think Olivet should let Colling teach his class, assuming he is a good teacher.)
You should either argue that both Baylor and Olivet are right, or they are both wrong. Any other position is inconsistent. It’s an ACLU kind of thing. If you are going to take a positioned stand for those you like, then you have to take the same stand for those you detest, or get off the high ground.
I do believe that that is what the original post in this blog suggested that the DI should do.
Raven treat people with some respect or I will respect your choice to have your postings moved to the Bathroom wall.
GvlGeologist, FCD,
Yes of course. The original post indeed suggested that the DI, which thinks Baylor is wrong, should also agree that Olivet is wrong.
I am extending that. Those of us who think Baylor was right, or at least within its rights, should also agree that Olivet is right, or at least within its rights.
Consistency is a minimal requirement for claiming the moral high ground yes. I believe that both these universities have the right to protect their ‘good name’.
Really? That’s odd. What are we supposed to do when the two things really are not equivalent?
These two things are not the same, that argument does not come from weakness, and saying that they are “primarily” the same (or whatever that weasel word was) does not change the fact that they are clearly not the same.
Apples are not oranges. That is not an argument from weakness.
To bother to repeat what David Stanton already clarified - Dembski was fired from Baylor for treating his colleagues badly; he is also associated with frequent production of verbose anti-science crackpottery, although that is not why he was fired. He is full-time faculty at a different institution, and owes that institution some respect. He concocted a back door scheme to get a fake grant and work at Baylor as a “post doc”, while drawing a faculty salary from another institution, but denying them the benefit of his ostensible grant money. It is implicit that he wished to associate his fake research with Baylor because he thinks that this will give it more prestige; he may also be motivated by petulance. Baylor was wise to pull the plug on this kind of unprofessional and unethical behavior.
Meanwhile, this thread is about a seemingly fairly honorable guy who teaches and accepts mainstream biology, and is also religious, and chooses to impart his expertise to a religious university. He’s being hounded, on the grounds that even to accept mainstream biology is an affront to the Nazarene religion.
No-one is denying the perfect right of a private institution to behave this way, either. We’re just commenting on how distasteful it is.
Pim
No doubt you know that Olivet Nazarene is a Christian school with deep historical evangelical roots. Colling had to know the tradition of the school when he signed on. If the teachings of any faculty are in direct contradiction to the confessional statement of the college, then the administration is within its rights to take action. Assuming O N does have some sort of confessional statement that faculty have signed on to (a reasonable assumption given that most religoius institutions do), then if Colling’s teaching violated that, then the administration has reason for action.
Baylor, on the other hand, presents itself as having the same level of academic freedom that its secular fellow schools, such as those in the big 12 do. From the Baylor mission statement:
But apparently not when it comes to anything even remotely related to ID. These two situations are not equivalent and there is no “irony”. You’re scrapping for controversy where none exists.
Today. Kinda. Looks like Crowther reads PT.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/0[…]en_we_n.html
Here is the “Statement of Faith” from the Olivet Nazarene website. Nothing about the Bible being literally true.
“At Olivet, learning and faith go hand-in-hand. The University affirms that all truth is God’s truth, and therefore, cannot be segmented into secular and non-secular categories and departments.
Theologically, as a service of the Church of the Nazarene, the University emphasizes the theistic view of God and man as interpreted in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. The University believes that:
1. there is one God—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 2. the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living; 3. humans are born with a fallen nature and are, therefore, continually inclined to evil; 4. the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost; 5. the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race, and that whosoever repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin; 6. believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 7. the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers; and 8. our Lord will return, the dead will be raised and the final judgment will take place.”
Donald M.
I already said that. New emphasis mine
In addition to the distasteful behavior of the direct antagonists here, the DI piece linked above is hypocritical.
But apparently you don’t find it distasteful. It’s a subjective valuation.
What is your personal view of the age of the earth, out of curiousity?
Crowther is a mealy-mouthed equivocating dishonest little worm.
ONU seems to be well within its rights to do what it is doing, and its critics are well within their rights to say that it stinks. As for the unfortunate Professor Colling, sad as his situation is, as the old saying goes, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Heddle wrote:
Generally I view arguing “the two situations are certainly not equivalent” as an argument from weakness.”
Respectfully, I view arguing that the two situations are equivalent is an argument that is not worthy of consideration.
“To first order they are the same.”
I agree. Academic freedom is certainly the central issue in both cases here. That does not even imply that the situations are equivalent.
“Those given responsibility to keep Baylor on its mission have, in my opinion, a right to say, even to a tenured professor, you can do that, but you cannot use Baylor’s name.
Those given responsibility to keep Olivet on its mission have a right to say you cannot teach such views in our classrooms.”
I agree. But again, saying that you cannot use the university name for promotion of religious views is definately not equivalent to saying that you cannot teach science in a science classroom.
Still, I need to clarify this. To me it doesn’t seem like teaching evolution in Biology class violates the statement of faith for the university. Of course, if Collings knew that that was in fact the way in which the statement would be interpreted, then perhaps he is getting exactly what he asked for. Perhaps he is even getting exactly what he wanted. Then the question becomes whether this is legal for the university to do or not. To me, any institution that accepts public funds is not free to decide the rules. If the university uses public funds then this is definately illegal and Collings will have legal recourse. If the university is funded completely privately, then they are probably within their rights to demand compliance to religious doctrine from their faculty. That is something Collings should have considered before being hired to work there.
So when can we expect Crowther and the DI to start posting on the viewpoint discrimination of Colling? Or is viewpoint discrimination ok if you can still find a job afterwards? What is the standard by which the DI measures the severity of viewpoint discrimination?
One comes to mind: Does it involve exposing the scientific vacuity of ID? If so, it must surely be viewpoint discrimination.
Why is it that Donald M could check the Baylor position but did not seem to find time to check the Nazarene position. He could have saved himself a lot of embarassment that way.
Funny how ID apologetics are trying to explain why viewpoint discrimination is sometimes allowed and sometimes it isn’t…
Consistency is not their strongest virtue…
I’d argue that they have more in common than being different. In both cases, the university decided to protect its reputation, its good name. One based on religious motives, the other one based on scientific motives. In both cases, either there was or was not a viewpoint discrimination argument to be made.
Of course, ID viewpoint discrimination is somehow worse… If ID proponents are to be believed. But I have found IDers to be seldomly consistent in their claims.
Seems to me that the whining by the DI is somewhat one sided and disingenuous. Which is perhaps why it has failed to impress most anyone… They lost a great PR opportunity, once again just after Dembski decided to crow victory. Some may see in this a repetition of history, others would blame it to unintelligent design and yet others would stand amazed at the powers of ID to self deflate.
FYI: When I tried to go directly to pandasthumb.org, I got this error:
Content Encoding Error
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.
* Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
Update