Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

State representative disapproves of Darwin 2009 Project

by Cadie Thompson

Reposted from:
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2009/mar/11/state-representative-disapproves-darwin-2009-proje/

OU students and faculty are busy celebrating the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the publishing of his book “On the Origin of Species,” but one Oklahoma lawmaker is not too happy about the party.

House Resolutions 1014 and 1015, introduced by Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, assert that OU’s recent evolution-related discussions, part of the “Darwin 2009” project, have been unfair and biased because proponents of creationism and intelligent design have not been represented equally alongside evolutionary biologists.

“I am trying to promote free thinking,” Thomsen said. “I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.”

Although Thomsen’s resolutions would not enforce any government action if passed, his efforts still have been met with opposition.

“It’s breathtakingly stupid,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “Rep. Thomsen might as well be complaining students are being indoctrinated with the theory of gravity.”

Boston said he thinks Thomsen’s resolutions promote creationism and are a step toward implementing creationism instruction in schools.

AUSCS is working with the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education to make sure creationism is kept out of the classroom, he said.

HR 1014 claims that the OU Department of Zoology has “been framing the Darwinian theory of evolution as doctrinal dogmatism rather than a hypothetical construction within the disciplines of sciences.”

But the word “theory” means something different in science than it does in colloquial language, according to Rosemary Knapp, director of graduate studies in the Department of Zoology.

“It’s as close to law as can be,” she said of the theory of evolution. “It’s the equivalent to gravity.”

Still, Thomsen said OU should encourage students to think independently about the issue by inviting speakers well-versed in creationism and intelligent design.

But creationism and intelligent design theories do not hold ground when compared to evolutionary biology, Knapp said.

“What’s really unfortunate is that people that are opposed to the fact that we don’t discuss things like intelligent design have a hard time recognizing intelligent design is not a scientific theory,” Knapp said. “It’s not on equal standing.”

The majority of Oklahomans hold views differ opposed to the teachings of evolutionary biology and the philosophy of author Richard Dawkins, who spoke on the Norman campus Friday night, Thomsen said.

“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dawkins to speak and I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value or anything Oklahoma represents,” he said.

According to HR 1015, Dawkins’ “published theories about evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.”

Thomsen did not point to any surveys to verify his statements regarding the opinions held by the majority of Oklahomans.

But even if the majority of Oklahomans do agree with Thomsen, it is still the responsibility of OU to educate citizens about evolutionary biology, Boston said.

“The underlining problem with these resolutions is they foster and promote ignorance,” Boston said. “Part of the reason public universities exist is to expose students to different ways of thinking.”

Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 69 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #351038 by dvespertilio on March 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm

Thomsen is clearly an idiot. I hope that OU will continue to stand up for the proper presentation of evolutionary theory for what it is, i.e., valid scientific theory, and oppose any efforts to advocate creationism, a religious dogma, in academic venues. If Thomsen wants to advocate creationism and ID, let him do it in a church, which is where it belongs.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

2. Comment #351040 by aristophanes_rising on March 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm

"Dawkins' published theories about evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma". If that's true then it is just so embarrassing, not only for the state of Oklahoma, but for all Americans.

Other Comments by aristophanes_rising

3. Comment #351041 by Richard Dawkins on March 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Contrary to the "breathtakingly stupid" Todd Thomsen (whose only distinction before being elected seems to have been on the football field), several creationists have in fact been invited to speak at the University of Oklahoma in recent weeks, including Casey Luskin, William Dembski and John C West of the "Discovery" Institute.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

4. Comment #351044 by NewEnglandBob on March 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Part of the reason public universities exist is to expose students to different ways of thinking.”

First they have to learn to start thinking.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

5. Comment #351046 by DoctorE on March 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm

How can an idiot get this far... only religion makes this possible for idiots

Other Comments by DoctorE

6. Comment #351047 by Tzsak on March 11, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Our downwards acceleration is proportional to how much we've sinned.

It's true.

Other Comments by Tzsak

7. Comment #351048 by blueollie on March 11, 2009 at 1:57 pm

I've got something for all of the creationists who are offended by a research university not teaching their myths as a valid alternative.

I've got it right here

Other Comments by blueollie

8. Comment #351050 by Squigit on March 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Perhaps they should invite ID advocates to speak...so that the students can HEAR someone spouting the stupidity of the "theory of god did it" and laugh in their faces.

Other Comments by Squigit

9. Comment #351051 by Richard Dawkins on March 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Perhaps they should invite ID advocates to speak...so that the students can HEAR someone spouting the stupidity of the "theory of god did it" and laugh in their faces.

Yes. See comment 3.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

10. Comment #351052 by steveroot on March 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm

“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dawkins to speak and I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value or anything Oklahoma represents,” he said.

This would be a non-sequitur if it weren't such a cipher of a statement.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

11. Comment #351054 by Ivan The Not So Bad on March 11, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Somewhat off topic but anyone in the UK who missed it can use the BBC iPlayer link below to see the excellent and very watchable "Deborah 13: Servant of God".

Controlling parents, 11 children, unshakable creationist beliefs, home schooling and a 13 year old evangelical daughter who tells everyone she meets they are going to Hell. Not to mention the camp as Christmas older brother who refuses to dance to Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" because he doesn't agree with it. Insane stuff.

Enjoy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j6l77/Deborah_13_Servant_of_God/

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

12. Comment #351055 by jmrunning3 on March 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm

"Thomsen did not point to any surveys to verify his statements regarding the opinions held by the majority of Oklahomans."

Because there likely aren't any. I live here in Oklahoma and I'm not shy about my atheism and support for science. There are many others as well. We just don't flock like the religionistas do!

Other Comments by jmrunning3

13. Comment #351056 by astarte on March 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Rosemary Knapp had many simple, clear, but important things to say in the article above, so maybe it is a good thing that Thomsen is generating so much publicity. He may have scored a touchdown with creationist Christians, but not all Christians are creationists and he's made himself look pretty stupid in the process.

EDIT - however, it is disappointing to read how many creationists have been invited to speak... not enough people like Dawkins in my view.

Other Comments by astarte

14. Comment #351057 by tvictor on March 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm

I wonder what my "Intelligent Calculus" teacher will talk about today...

Other Comments by tvictor

15. Comment #351058 by firstelder_d on March 11, 2009 at 2:22 pm

"It’s breathtakingly stupid," said Rob Boston

That sums it up

Other Comments by firstelder_d

16. Comment #351064 by Richard Dawkins on March 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm

The following message has just been posted, by a good citizen of Oklahoma, on the website of the newspaper that originally carried this story. Note that he includes Rep Thomsen's email address at the bottom.

I just sent the following message to Representative Thomsen's e-mail.

Representative Thomsen,

With all due respect, go **** yourself.

Evolution is science, and I am proud that the University of Oklahoma is hosting the Darwin 2009 Events. Instead of making yourself (and our great state) the laughing stock of the nation, perhaps you should spend your time focusing on something that matters. We need better healthcare, better funding for our schools and institutions of higher education, and we desperately need improvements to our roads and bridges. The next time you get the itch to write legislation condemning and lambasting individuals for their beliefs, I suggest you think about the golden rule for a moment.

I am going to make a big donation to your opponent in the next election. And I am going to ask my friends to do the same.

Have a nice day,

Michael J. Davis

Please send a message yourself to his addy at: todd.thomsen@okhouse.gov

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

17. Comment #351067 by Auraboy on March 11, 2009 at 2:56 pm

"I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value" says todd thomsen...much like pornography probably, he can't explain it, but he'll know it when he sees it...and Richard isn't it! Hmm, internationally renowned scientist versus ex football player...ah well...

I think the Rob Boston comment was spot on. Enough of this, 'well we're trying to accomodate their views and we can respectfully disagree but...' rubbish. Just point out their idiots and liars. It's the only way sadly.

Other Comments by Auraboy

18. Comment #351068 by Stephen Maxwell on March 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Carl Sagan

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time, when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

I wonder why Mr. Thomsen isn't suggesting astrologer's speak to the astronomy students at the University of Oklahoma?

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

19. Comment #351069 by Gregg Townsend on March 11, 2009 at 2:58 pm

3. Comment #351041 by Richard Dawkins

(whose only distinction before being elected seems to have been on the football field)

This is a huge problem in the U.S. (and I suppose around the world to). As I see it, democracies need to think about having minimum requirements for elected officials. We need elite leaders to understand the complexities of the issues in front of them. Electing "popular" people to promote ignorant opinion is not going to help us out of our troubles...in my opinion.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

20. Comment #351070 by friarjohn on March 11, 2009 at 2:58 pm

I *heart* Michael J. Davis.

Other Comments by friarjohn

21. Comment #351071 by neander on March 11, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Hey

Ivan The Not So Bad

is there a link for that for non-poms'

Other Comments by neander

22. Comment #351073 by cornbread_r2 on March 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Thomsen's biography states that he is the chair of the Higher Education and Career Technology committee. Yikes!

Other Comments by cornbread_r2

23. Comment #351075 by Frankus1122 on March 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Does anyone have a visual representation of the number of peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals that deal with evolution, or use the facts of evolution as a framework or support for their thesis, versus the number of peer-reviewed papers published in science journals that deal with or lend support to Intelligent Design?

Anyone? Anyone?

Just imagine what that would look like.

How many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of advances in science have been made within the framework of the Theory of Evolution.

And how many under the Intelligent Design framework?
*(crickets)*

Other Comments by Frankus1122

24. Comment #351077 by bjornove on March 11, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Richard? I believe that William Provine, well known evolutionary biologist and "strident atheist" wrote somewhere that the best way to combat creationism was actually to deal with it in a science class. I am a science and biology teacher back home in Norway and although creationism is not a problem here (we are almost all non-believers or more or less indifferent to religion here in Scandinavia) my experience is that by actually discussing it (As Michael Reiss proposed? ) it's not difficult to debunk it. I agree, Personally, I don't believe sticking our head in the sand and hope it goes away is the way to go. When discussed, most student see that the "god of the gap theory" won't work in science and that methodolocial naturalism is the only way to do science
Any opinion on this?

Bjorn

Other Comments by bjornove

25. Comment #351080 by Gregg Townsend on March 11, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Bjorn,

I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be discussed if it is brought up in the class room. It should be, and soundly put down like the rabid dog that it is. What is objectionable is having it REQUIRED as a talking point in the curriculum.

--edited
--edited again because I can't figure out where an apostrophe goes. Sheesh.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

26. Comment #351082 by Frankus1122 on March 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm

24. Comment #351077 by bjornove

As Gregg said, I think it could be very useful as an example of what science is not.
It should not be taught as a valid alternative viewpoint.

How many scientific papers deal with evolution? How many with Intelligent Design?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

27. Comment #351084 by DamnDirtyApe on March 11, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Its times like this that I wish we could harness stupidity as a renewable energy source.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

28. Comment #351085 by Frankus1122 on March 11, 2009 at 3:20 pm

I did a quick little search on Google Scholar for "Evolution" and then "Intelligent Design".

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,540,000 for Evolution [definition]. (0.08 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 18,500 for "Intelligent Design". (0.12 seconds)

Here are some examples of the ID papers:

[BOOK] Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology
WA Dembski - 1999 - books.google.com

The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.
L Susskind, M Dine… - American Journal of Physics, 2007 - link.aip.org

[BOOK] Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design
B Forrest, PR Gross - 2004 - books.google.com

A multi-agent intelligent design system integrating manufacturing and shop-floor control
S Balasubramanian, DH Norrie - Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi- …, 1995 - aaai.org

Other Comments by Frankus1122

29. Comment #351090 by digibud on March 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm

I agree that intelligent design and creationism should be discussed in the classroom. Not taught...discussed. Briefly. I am a retired Biology teacher and when such subjects came up (nobody used the phrase Intelligent Design when I was teaching but the concept was brought up) I simply explained that in a science class we would learn science, not religion, and that there were many, many religious stories about how the earth was made and how mankind came into being but we would not be dealing with any of that. With regard to SOME scientists saying the earth is young etc. I explained that it's not feasible to discuss every single person's beliefs and views on the subject and that what we would be learning is the most current, factually based science as understood today by leading scientists and supported by the most recent data as best I could explain it. Students had the right (by School Board policy) to have their parents remove them from controversial topics (controversial to them...not science) like evolution and sex ed. but very few exercised that right.
It can't be a big surprise that some legislators have no understanding of science and that some idiots like Thomsen will get elected. Shit happens.

Other Comments by digibud

30. Comment #351095 by rod-the-farmer on March 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm

....have been unfair and biased because proponents of creationism and intelligent design have not been represented equally alongside evolutionary biologists

What ? I watched the video, and there WAS a person who claimed to be a biologist there, ready to ask a question that it appeared would challenge Prof. Dawkins. But he claimed he "did not need a microphone" and left without stating his case.

If proponents of the dark side wish to attend, and to state their case, this individual had that chance, and abandoned the ship, so to speak. Surely the university cannot be blamed for that.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

31. Comment #351096 by Sally Luxmoore on March 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Re comments 3 (Richard) and 19 (Gregg townsend)

This is Bill Maher on the problem of anti elitism in the US. Very funny, but also pertinent, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sNJhphi7U

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

32. Comment #351099 by MelM on March 11, 2009 at 3:47 pm

This is the same game as at the high school level: "teach the controversy".

Other Comments by MelM

33. Comment #351100 by Spinoza on March 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm

I know that I have hands.

Other Comments by Spinoza

34. Comment #351101 by Gregg Townsend on March 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Sally,

I recognise that video as humor (humour), but the tears running down my face aren't from laughing.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

35. Comment #351103 by Rawhard Dickins on March 11, 2009 at 3:59 pm

"I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dawkins to speak and I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value"

... oh well, it's a good thing we have the book of goat-herders to rely on.

PS Ivan, I saw Deborah 13 .. very sad!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

36. Comment #351104 by Gregg Townsend on March 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm

33. Comment #351100 by Spinoza

You also have a phallus for a mind.

Go do what cums natural.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

37. Comment #351106 by MaxD on March 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Well I just sent Todd my letter. Hope he finds it edifying.

Other Comments by MaxD

38. Comment #351110 by b0ltzm0n on March 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm

“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dawkins to speak and I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value or anything Oklahoma represents,” Thomsen said.

And what are Mr. Thomsen's educational credentials qualifying him to make a judgement call about Richard's ability to "represent anything of scientific value" or not?

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

39. Comment #351111 by Ivan The Not So Bad on March 11, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Comment #351071 by neander

"Is there a link for non-poms"

'Fraid not. The iPlayer is only for those of us in the UK who've slipped a nifty hundred and fourty into Auntie Beeb's purse.

You might find someone has uploaded it onto You Tube, or in the longer term, BBC documentaries often turn up on ABC in Australia or CBC in Canada as well as BBC America.

It's well worth looking out for - not as obviously unhinged as Jesus Camp or America's Most Hated family but creepy and sad all the same.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

40. Comment #351112 by Quine on March 11, 2009 at 4:16 pm

“It’s breathtakingly stupid,” said Rob Boston, ...

Other Comments by Quine

41. Comment #351114 by Sally Luxmoore on March 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Gregg.

You have my sympathies.

But we Brits can't afford to be smug. We have 'celebrities' and our tabloid 'newspapers' to weep over here...

Nonetheless, I love Bill Maher. I watch his 'new rules' on Youtube whenever I have a spare moment.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

42. Comment #351115 by itopal63 on March 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Comment #351090 by digibud:
I agree that intelligent design and creationism should be discussed in the classroom. Not taught...discussed.

Really what class is that?

Politics?
English?
Mythology and religion?
Biology?

Why waste precious time in a science class on non-science? I could understand a discussion or essay in English, on sociological-political trends, but beyond that... whatever.

Other Comments by itopal63

43. Comment #351117 by phasmagigas on March 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm

i have this awesome book from 1963: the science of life by G.rattray taylor, its a pictorial history of biology with some fantastic historical picturse of all kinds. Anyway the opening is excellent, im going to type this to give you an idea of teh books flavour.

'THERE IS A TREE - not, it is true, common in france, but frequently observed in scotland,' says a botanical work of 1609. 'from this tree leaves are falling; uon one side they strike the water and slowly turn into fishes, upon the other they strike the land and turn into birds.'

the science of living things, how they are formed and how they function, was not built upon by filling a vacuum of ignorance, but by the gradual destruction of false and misleading beliefs, which the people of the Middle Ages regarded as satisfactory explanations.'

it then goes on to quote Paracelcus who believes you can make a man with putrefied semen if you bathe it in blood for 40 days, it gfoes through a homunculus stage first!!

anyway the book is worth searching out for the pictures alone.

I need not say how this relates to the sheer tomfoolery and fuckwittery of todd thompsen.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

44. Comment #351120 by Nyarlat on March 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm

I think there should be a vote in america if einstein was right and if quantumtheorie is just obscene.

If they vote einstein=wrong then they all have to abbandon their GPS systems.
If they vote qm=silly then they have to dismantle all atomic bombs and nuclear reactors.

That would give them a lesson to learn.

Other Comments by Nyarlat

45. Comment #351123 by MaxD on March 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm

itopal63,
This is part of my problem with digibud's comment. A great deal of class time is already not used for teaching, why incorporate non-science into class time.

I had no problem entertaining the questions of students but creationism is something you hit during the history of the ideas about life on earth, a paragraph and then you are moving on. It isn't something that requires a lot of time I don't think.

Other Comments by MaxD

46. Comment #351124 by phasmagigas on March 11, 2009 at 4:49 pm

whoops, i lost my post!

every time a creationist says 'fair' a biologist should say 'evidence'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

47. Comment #351129 by astarte on March 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm

31. Comment #351096 by Sally Luxmoore

Thanks for the link to the funny clip, Sally. It is rather shocking that so many people in the Bush-Cheney administration were graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University.

Other Comments by astarte

48. Comment #351136 by cristinabories on March 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm

I've already posted this on another thread, but perhaps this guy, though being utterly stupid, is a mover.
See http://www.adaeveningnews.com/local/local_story_068124516.html
Thompsen has been recently been appointed to the EpSCOR advisory committee: a committee whose purpose is
"to enhance scientific and engineering research and development conducted at universities in the state and by doing so enhance the success of Oklahoma researchers in federal award competitions through a partnership of higher education institutions, independent research entities, industry and state government."
The EpSCOR is funded by the National Science Fundation... can you believe this?

Other Comments by cristinabories

49. Comment #351139 by Ohnhai on March 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm

RD wrote: (whose only distinction before being elected seems to have been on the football field)

I didn't want to say anything (I generally try to avoid being cruel) but when I saw the Representative's Photo I though he looked like a bit of a knuckle-dragger...

Other Comments by Ohnhai

50. Comment #351140 by cristinabories on March 11, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Oh, I have to add this...
"Todd Thompsen – a southeastern Oklahoma representative for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a member of OU’s 1985 championship football team – Monday became the newly-elected state representative for Ada-based House District 25, after a recount showed him winning by a two-vote margin there."
In a republican state he barely manages to win by two votes.

Other Comments by cristinabories

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last