Intelligent design and academic freedom

{{silver}}{{crenav}}
'''Intelligent design''' is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by [[God|an intelligent cause]], not an undirected process such as [[natural selection]]."<ref>This is the first sentence of {{wpl|Intelligent design|Wikipedia's entry on intelligent design|,}} retrieved 2008-1-31. It is cited with two lengthy footnotes too messy to bring here.</ref>

'''Academic freedom''' is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy.<ref>This is the first sentence of {{wpl|Academic freedom|Wikipedia's entry on academic freedom|,}} retrieved 2008-1-31.</ref>

[[Intelligent design]] proponents like to make a lot of noise about academic repression and denial of {{wpl|academic freedom||.}} Beyond the [[Persecution complex|whining]] are very few specific examples, and usually upon closer scrutiny, even these examples seem duplicitous, often the results of things like personality conflicts and academic politics rather than the product of a vast [[conspiracy]] to suppress intelligent design.

Ultimately, intelligent design is just a [[newspeak]] rebranding of [[creationism]]; though it uses [[science woo|scientific jargon]], it is not [[science]] because it violates the principle of [[methodological naturalism]], is not [[falsifiability|falsifiable]], and does not use [[scientific method]]ology. As such, it is [[pseudoscience]], and shouldn't be propagated at places where actual science is done. However, universities have tended to bend over backwards — in the name of academic freedom — to be tolerant of staff advocating this blatant non-science.

==Case studies==
===Guillermo Gonzalez tenure denial===
In June 2007, [[Astronomer]] and Intelligent Design supporter '''Guillermo Gonzalez''' was denied [[tenure]] at Iowa State University. The [[Discovery Institute]] (of which Gonzalez is a fellow) was the primary group that managed the [[public relations]] campaign against the university and claimed that the denial was merely about an inherent prejudice against an ID supporter in academia. 

The main argument by the DI that Gonzalez should have received tenure was that he had significantly more publications than were needed at Iowa State.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071215074900/http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/university_president_denies_ap.html Evolution News and Views: University President Denies Appeal in Tenure Case of Intelligent Design Astronomer at Iowa State University] 2 June 2007 (from Archive.org)</ref> However, the number quoted by the DI is the total number of publications in Gonzalez's career (only those publications written while at Iowa State count), and the standards for tenure include ''much'' more than a publication record. Additionally, those papers were based on research done by Gonzalez as a post-doctoral student, not as an independent researcher.  

One of the significant issues in deciding whether to approve tenure was the amount of research funding Gonzalez had secured. Since coming to Iowa State, Gonzalez has brought in about $22,661 in outside grant money; by comparison, his colleagues averaged $1.3 million in grant money before becoming tenured.<ref>{{wpa|Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)#Reasons for denial}}</ref> Whether people like it or not, money makes the world go round, and ''every'' researcher at ''any'' research-focused institute will be assessed heavily on their ability to get grant funding.<ref>[http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/creative_writing/tenure6.pdf Getting Tenure at a University] by Neal R. Wagner (2006) ''The University of Texas at San Antonio''.</ref>

===Richard Sternberg and the Smithsonian===
'''Richard Sternberg''' was an editor for the journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', which is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute.<ref name=npr>[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty (November 10, 200512:00 AM ET) ''NPR''.</ref> In 2004, Sternberg approved for publication an article by Discovery Institute "fellow" '''[[Stephen Meyer]]''' entitled: ''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories''.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040915214444/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories] by Stephen C. Meyer (September 15, 2004) ''Center for Science & Culture'' (archived from September 15, 2004).</ref> After the publication, Sternberg came under fire for bypassing the normal [[peer-review]] process for the journal (specifically, not including another editor in the peer review process). Ultimately, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington released a press release that said in part:
{{cquote|The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of [[biological]] information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard V. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.<ref>[http://ncse.com/news/2004/10/bsw-strengthens-statement-repudiating-meyer-paper-00528 BSW Strengthens Statement Repudiating Meyer Paper] by David Almandsmith (10.24.2004) The National Center for Science Education</ref>}}

After this, Sternberg claimed to have been singled out for ill treatment at his job as a staffer at the Smithsonian. Specifically, Sternberg claims that he:<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20051115191623/http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic: Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?] by David Klinghoffer (Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST) ''Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page'' (archived copy from November 15, 2005).</ref>
* Was targeted to have his job removed.
* Met with negative interactions from colleagues.
* Had his keys taken away and lost access to his office. 
* Was denied access to specimens for his research purposes.

Sternberg filed a religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian, but the Office of Special Counsel ultimately dismissed his claim.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html The Panda's Thumb: Sternberg complaint dismissed] 19 August 2005</ref>

Others have reported that Sternberg's primary complaints were mostly trumped up:<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070715000000*/http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php Creating a Martyr: The Sternberg Saga Continues] by Ed Brayton (December 19, 2006 10:06 AM) ''Dispatches from the Culture Wars'' (archived from May 22, 2007).</ref>
* No threats were made to Sternberg's face regarding his job.
* Most of the ill will focused around professional malfeasance on his part. 
* Sternberg's keys and office were changed as part of a larger move that affected the whole museum.
* Sternberg's access to resources and specimens did not change and were equal to that of anyone in his position.

===Michael Behe's disclaimer===
[[File:Behe.gif|thumb|right|165px|Michael Behe]]
[[Michael Behe]] is a professor of [[biochemistry]] at Lehigh University and a major proponent of intelligent design. The faculty at his university put up a general disclaimer on their website stating that they have unequivocal support for the [[theory of evolution]] and that Behe is the only dissenter.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060737/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"] (2003) ''Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences'' (archived from October 13, 2005).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200401011104/https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"] ''Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences'' (archived from April 1, 2020).</ref> While Behe may have had his feelings hurt, the university has afforded him plenty of freedom, including the right to teach an ID class:
{{cquote|Michael Behe, an intelligent-design advocate and biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, [[Pennsylvania]], teaches an elective first-year seminar on 'popular arguments on evolution'. "The majority of my colleagues disagree with me," he says. "But my chairman supports my right to have my own views and argue them in a public setting."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20050701000000*/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html Box 1. Cast out from class.] From: "Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?" by Geoff Brumfiel (2005) ''Nature'' 434:1062-1065. doi:10.1038/4341062a (archived from April 28, 2005).</ref>}}

===William Dembski and Baylor===
[[File:Dembski head shot 2.jpg|thumb|right|165px|William Dembski]]
In 1999, [[William Dembski]] was involved in setting up a new ID center at Baylor University in Texas. The center consisted of two people; Dembski and Bruce Gordon, another intelligent design promoter. Both individuals were hired directly by university president Richard Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation.

The complete disregard for standard procedure, the embarrassingly [[anti-science]] nature of its mission, and Dembski's incessant prancing and preening led the faculty at Baylor to vote 27-2 to dissolve the center. The university president refused, but agreed to allow an outside review. That review pretty much agreed with the faculty, and the center was absorbed into existing structures at Baylor and disappeared. 

Dembski, however, [[Galileo Gambit|took this loss as a victory]] (as ID is wont to do) and issued a press release saying that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry", and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140729194303/http://www.baylor.edu/lariatarchives/news.php?action=story&story=15673 Polanyi official's e-mail concerns some faculty] (October 19, 2000) ''Baylor University'' (archived from July 19, 2014).</ref>

This outright [[lie]] and attack on the university faculty and integrity finally got to the university president, who asked Dembski to withdraw the press release. Dembski refused, calling Sloan's request [[McCarthyism]]. Sloan had Dembski removed from any real position at Baylor and kept on as an "associate", but never asked to teach or engage the university in any way. Finally, in 2005, Baylor and Dembski officially parted ways.

===Caroline Crocker's dissent===
'''Caroline Crocker''' was a part-time faculty member at [[George Mason University]] where she primarily taught introductory biology. In her last year at the university, she decided to give a series of lectures straight out of [[Kent Hovind]] videos. She ranted about the [[Cambrian explosion]], the [[Miller-Urey experiment]], and the multiple 
"kinds"
 "types" of evolution. After the year was over, her contract was up and it was not renewed. 
Crackpot
 Crocker claims it was because of her "lectures", while the university maintains it had nothing to do with that and that they just didn't need her services anymore.<ref name=crocker>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822.html Eden and evolution] by Shankar Vedantam (February 5, 2006) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

Regardless of why she wasn't rehired, the university would have been firmly within its rights to dump her based on what she taught. She was a non-tenured temporary professor hired to teach Biology 101, but instead opted to turn it into a tirade against established scientific principles — a professional risk she chose to take. She flat-out stated in her interview that she would not teach any [[evidence]] for evolution because there "really isn't any" and that she saw her role as being to fight the entrenched [[dogma]] of science education that her students brought into the classroom.<ref name=crocker /> The university would have been within its rights and probably ethical responsibilities to show her the door the moment she started teaching lies, but they were tolerant and allowed her to finish out her contract.

==Analysis==
These are the major examples of "oppression" that ID [[shill]]s bring up when talking about academic freedom. What can be seen by these examples is that they are very few in number and are instigated by the ID promoter and not the university. In fact, most of the universities involved have gone out of their way to tolerate these noisy belligerents in the name of academic freedom. Most of them should have been out the door for their original violations of ethics and standards, but all were kept on in various positions for a significant time afterwards. If any pattern can be found here, it is that academia is far more tolerant of deluded professors than it should be.

''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is the best known documentary arguing for ID, but a major problem for the movie is the lack of rationale for including ID in the curriculum or that ID is worthy of being called "scientific". Part and parcel with being discussed as a science are certain [[Methodological naturalism|guidelines]] that scientists use to [[Scientific method|weed out]] pseudoscience and [[hypotheses]] that cannot be [[Falsifiability|falsified]]. ''Expelled'' does not take on the [[Expelled: Leader's Guide|criticisms]] leveled against ID, and instead almost seems to argue that ID should be included simply because it is an "alternative". If one follows through on this logic, then any [[Lists of pseudosciences|"alternative"]] is acceptable. In fact, during the [[Kitzmiller]] trial, [[Michael Behe#The Dover trial|Michael Behe]] himself said that under the auspices of ID and Behe's revised definition of [[Theory|"theory"]], [[astrology]] would be considered science.

==Double standard==
{{main|Hypocrisy}}
Even if there were some legitimate instance of a creationist being drummed out of academia on the basis of those views, there is some evidence that when creationists wave the banner of "academic freedom", they are just [[bullshit]]ting about academic freedom without really believing in it. Based on these protests, you'd think that Christian colleges, the heart and soul of the creationist movement, would be especially lenient (if only to show that these claims are being made on good faith). You would be wrong. A number of [[evangelical]] scholars working at such colleges have written articles questioning the [[Biblical literalism|literal]] [[Young Earth creationism|young-earth]] interpretation of [[Genesis]], on account of which they were investigated and fired, with many winding up in [[secular]] schools.<ref>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=138957812 Minnesota Public Radio: Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve] 9 August 2011</ref> Thus, [[Irony|the only places which actually teach ID]] ([[fundamentalist Christian]] colleges and universities) do so [[Hypocrisy|because they ''don't'' have academic freedom]]. Unlike these fundamentalist institutions, traditional, secular universities don't force their staff to adhere to any specific religious (or non-religious) creed as a condition of their employment, [[Atheist professor myth|fundamentalist mythmaking]] [[Liberal academia|notwithstanding]].

==See also==
*[[Academic Freedom Act]]
*[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] — a "documentary" featuring Ben Stein on this very topic
*[[Expelled: Leader's Guide]] — our side-by-side shredding of the official "Leader's Guide" for the movie

==External links==
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/does-intelligent-design-have-merit The Discovery Institute and the National Center for Science Education debate Intelligent Design]

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience and academic freedom]]
[[Category:Creationist claims]]
[[Category:Intelligent design creationism]]

Categories: Pseudoscience, Pseudoscience and academic freedom, Creationist claims, Intelligent design creationism