Extreme leftist totalitarian evilutionist reporting for duty!
Oh, crap. I’m coming to this a few days late. When they updated their software, I also grabbed the link to Crooked Timber’s newsfeed, and it was garbled (I discovered that NetNewsWire prepends an “http://” in front of url’s that specify a “feed:” protocol, producing an unholy hybrid that does not work) so I’ve been missing everything from them for some time. In particular, I missed an interesting discussion of classroom “diversity” that was fueled by this stunning comment in the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
Rep. Dennis K. Baxley said his own undergraduate education at Florida State University—in the 1970s—illustrated the failings of higher education: The problem was that an anthropology professor “did a tirade” in his course that evolution was correct and that creationism was not. Baxley said that students should not “get blasted” as he did for not believing in evolution.
Baxley said that faculties have too many €œleftist totalitarian niches€ and that lawmakers want to do something about the fact that “we€™ve allowed universities to become an extreme leftist stronghold.”
Wow. And I mean, wow.
A couple of points come to mind:
Tirades are no-nos in the classroom. I do tirades on Pharyngula, but not in my lectures—”tirade” implies that the students aren’t allowed to sneak in a word or two or express a difference of opinion, and that it is intended to castigate the audience. If Baxley was actually subjected to one, he experienced some poor pedagogy, but that’s it—it wasn’t a leftist conspiracy to brainwash him. I have a suspicion, though, that it wasn’t actually what he claims it was. We professors generally have an audience supportive of good science in our science classes, and there isn’t usually the level of frustration with that required to fire up a good rant. More likely, he just got a good lecturing in why creationism is garbage.
He shouldn’t be upset at that. It’s called “teaching the controversy“.
In fact, he should expect more of it. If science instructors are asked to waste spend more time discussing Intelligent Design creationism, that’s what we’re going to do: use the time to rip it to shreds critically. And he should look forward to more blasting of creationists.
Another point: this was in an anthropology class. Isn’t it a good idea for students to know the best scientific explanation for human origins in that discipline? Baxley signed up for the course, and I’m curious to know what he expected to learn. Migration routes from the Garden of Eden? That the Lascaux paintings were actually done by God, and given the illusion of a greater than six thousand year old age? I’m finding it hard to imagine an anthropology course that wouldn’t give a die-hard culture warrior of the right the heebie-jeebies: social anthropology with all of that appreciation of non-Western cultures, or physical anthropology with comparative primate anatomy and million year old fossils…all of it pretty much diametrically opposed to the Religious Right’s wacko ideas.
Lastly, I occasionally get grief from readers because I am vociferously liberal, and they complain that I tar conservatives with a broad brush. There is some truth to this. I can appreciate in an intellectual sense that there can be an intelligent, reasonable conservative position on many issues, one that I can respect even if there is no way in hell I’d ever favor it myself. I even think I have benefitted from conservative thought in the past—the modern US scientific establishment is largely the product of old-time, hard-headed conservative policy (look up Vannevar Bush sometime; arguably one of the most important founders of the American military-industrial research complex, and no poncing liberal, he).
But, face it, those days are gone. The new face of America’s Republican party, what used to be our conservative party, consists of people like Baxley—know-nothings and theocrats who blithely consider teaching good science a property of “leftist totalitarian niches”. I find it hard to take seriously accusations that my brush is too wide when the representatives of the Right are using an industrial-grade paint-sprayer themselves.



March 27th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Here you go smearing Creationism and Intelligent Design with all that science speak. How can you be really sure it’s not the truth? I mean, can 500 wingnut trolls and 200 wingnut bloggers really be wrong?
March 27th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Postmodernism claims yet another Christian.
How do you know God didn’t create the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly at it appears now? Don’t be so openminded that your brain falls out.
March 27th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I am constantly amazed at the notion that scientists should somehow be required to give significant teaching time to creationsim.
If you believe the true answer to 2+2 is not a finite number, that’s fine, but don’t expect your math teacher to spend much time on that theory.
If you believe that women are inferior genetically, that is your right, but don’t expect it to be given attention in your women’s studies class.
Don’t be surprised if your film studies class doesn’t even mention your belief that Baywatch is the pinacle of western culture.
If you believe in a God that places fossils as some kind of cosmic joke and is limited in ability to only operating within a human work week, go for it, but don’t expect to hear about it in your anthropology class.
March 27th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
But, face it, those days are gone. The new face of America€™s Republican party, what used to be our conservative party, consists of people like Baxley€”know-nothings and theocrats who blithely consider teaching good science a property of €œleftist totalitarian niches€.
Well said. The shouting down continues. No opposing view will be allowed may be heard or taught.
History has seen this MO before.
The MO? Contrary views that do not adhere to the theocratic view will be themselves attacked as “oppressors”
More on the Bush take on Science here.
March 27th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Hi! I know you from Pharyngula!
March 27th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
I think Kristjan is being sarcastic, above; note his use of the words “wingnut trolls” which I doubt any of their supporters would use.
March 29th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Political differences are normative and subjective. We should or should not have invaded Iraq. We prefer or don’t prefer Bush’s policies. Abortion is morally right or wrong.
It is appropriate for people to disagree about these things. You should argue with them in a certain way.
Creationism is different. It is factually incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. We’re talking about the equivalent of Holocaust denial in the field of science. That is a wholly different problem.
And you react, yes “react,” to both arguments in the same way. And typically ‘lump’ all your opponents together. “Religious zealots have taken over the Republican party. There are no principled conservatives.” You repeat those unproven assertions … well, just like Creationists.
It is very “Paul-like,” you know.
And your final sentence, “They are worse than I am,” is the most fitting self-conviction from a scientist that I can imagine. “I am a scientist, a person who operates in the realm of fact and evidence, except when I want to engage in cheap propagandistic fallacies … because … THE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE.”
March 30th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Wakboth is quite correct. I am not endorsing Creationism. Intelligent Dersign on the other hand….
Nah. PZ knows me from his own blog, so he knows that I am on his site. I only think I have commented on politics, posters and the actual blog here on The American Street.