Ball State Provost talks about Hedin investigation, and some Hoosier reaction

UPDATE:  The new stuff about Guillermo Gonzalez being hired at Ball State will, according to Discovery Institute flak David Klinghoffer, be discussed on today’s Michael Medved show.  The DI naturally feels persecuted by my revelation that creationist Gonzalez will be teaching there, even though I added that I have no idea whether he’ll teach intelligent design.  If you want to listen to a bunch of anti-evolutionists scream about persecution, the Medved Show details are at Evolution News and Views, in a post that includes these lovely tidbits:

From the start, Hedin’s most vocal persecutor, the guy with the biggest megaphone, has been University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, backed up by the rabid atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation. Now Coyne has got word that besides the offense of physicist Dr. Hedin’s teaching from a reading list including texts favorable to intelligent design, Ball State University has hired an actual ID advocate, astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was previously the victim of discrimination for his views on ID by his former employer, Iowa State University.

Coyne is on the warpath. On today’s Science & Culture Update on the Medved Show, Mr. Medved will talk with Dr. Gonzalez’s co-author Dr. Jay Richards about the related cases, about Darwinist attempts to preemptively shut down Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt, and about the long history of Darwinists seeking to silence dissenters.

I love the “rabid atheist” bit: the tropes just get angrier and angrier as the DI feels more beleaguered. Do we ever hear about “rabid IDers” or “rabid Catholics”?  Klinghoffer, for example, could be deemed a “rabid Orthodox Jew,” but I wouldn’t call him that.

The DI can’t seem to distinguish between criticism of Darwin’s Doubt (Stephen Meyer’s screed about how God an intelligent designer created the Cambrian explosion, and attempt to shut down the book.

This is the best part of Klinghoffer’s rant (my bold):

Darwinism is not just a science, not just a philosophical worldview supporting atheism and materialism, but a culture of rage and persecution. Remember what happened to Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg just for editing Meyer’s article in a biology journal. And of course Thomas Nagel escaped harm after he wrote favorably about Stephen Meyer’s work and other pro-ID theorists only because Dr. Nagel’s position in the academic world is so totally unassailable.

One could characterize the DI, on the other hand, as a culture not only of rage (at their ideas not being accepted) but woo, lying, and self-described martyrdom.

And Nagel did not of course escape intellectual harm; many people criticized his insupportable take on Darwinism, and I documented that “persecution” on this website (see here, for instance).

__________________

In an article at The Daily, the Ball State University student newspaper, provost Terry King discussed the issues involved in the case of Eric Hedin, the BSU professor accused of proselytizing for religion, Christianity in particular, in a science class, and teaching discredited intelligent design creationism without presenting the alternative (i.e., true view of evolution.  (In the U.S., the provost is usually the chief academic officer of a university).

An anonymous informant told me about Hedin’s activities, made obvious by his publicly posted syllabus, and I wrote to Hedin’s chariman in the department of Physics and Astronomy, asking that he review the course. I was brushed aside, and brought the case to the attention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). They then wrote to BSU informing them about the course and its potential as a violation of the U.S.’s First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the mixing of government and religion.

Ball State then convened a committee to investigate Hedin’s course, which is the right thing to do. This is not a tempest in a teapot, for it bears not only on a professor’s right to teach discredited science (without presenting the alternativve view) in a university science course, but also on the professor’s right to push a religious point of view on his students. Neither of these issue has ever been properly adjudicated by American courts.

At any rate, King notes that the investigation should be complete within a month, that the committee consists of four members (three Ball State faculty :Gary Dodson, professor of biology, Richard Fluegeman Jr., professor of geological sciences; and Juli Thorsen Eflin, professor of philosophy, as well as Catherine Pilachowski, a professor of astronomy at Indiana University).

Provost King says some sensible things here, which gives me hope that Ball State will do the right thing:

King said the committee will review if the content is appropriate, if the professor is qualified and if the teaching is appropriate. He said he seeks advice often, but has chosen the committee because of the complexity of the case.

“It’s not exactly clear to me,” he said. “If this were an ordinary differential equations math course and someone wanted to talk about no mathematical subjects in the course, then I would be very concerned. This is an honors course and it may be that discussion is appropriate, but I don’t know yet.”

I hope King realizes that the “discussion” in Hedin’s class was one-sided, as there were not readings presenting a non-religious, materialist view of science.

King said the university still hasn’t received any complaints from inside the university and only one complaint from outside the university from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization whose purpose is to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church. But the university has received contact from individuals reacting positively and negatively about the situation.

There are at least three reent students who have complained about Hedin’s proselytizing, as well as three others who made similar complaints on the Rate My Professors site, but all have so far been afraid to come forward. That is understandable, of course, particularly in a religious state like Indiana, where ostracism follows criticism of religion. But if any of those students are reading this, I would ask them to consider going public, for that’s the best way to stop the spread of creeping religionism in public schools. Public naming is important here, both for credibility and potential lawsuits, though I hope this case doesn’t go to the courts.

[King] said some confuse First Amendment freedom of speech with academic freedom in a course, but the two are different.

“On the teaching side it is very specific about in the appropriate teaching of a course, one can bring in controversial concepts if it’s appropriate to the nature of the course. Academic freedom is something that I know the president [Jo Ann Gora] and I feel very strongly about,” King said. “We are very much in support of faculty members appropriately teaching their courses or appropriately doing their research even if it takes them into unpopular areas.”

The key word here is “appropriate.” I hope King, who sounds reasonable, knows that “academic freedom” is not a license to teach whatever you want in a college course, particularly not lies about creationism or evidence for God in the universe.

In the end, I can’t see how Ball State can allow Hedin to continue to teach the course in its present incarnation. It will be an embarrassment to Ball State to harbor such a course, just as it’s an embarrassment to Lehigh University to harbor ID creationist Michael Behe. (Read the Lehigh biology department’s position on intelligent design. Will Ball State have to write one, too?)

*****

In the meantime, op-eds and letters in Indiana newspapers continue to support Hedin. I was told that, in religious terms, Indiana is effectively a Southern state, but I didn’t believe it until now. I give a few excerpts:

Letter in the Muncie Star-Press from Mike McClure: “Why the controversy?“:

Teaching intelligent design in an elective course on the philosophical implications of cosmology is hardly controversial. With the formation of the universe, whether you are talking about unified force theory or what many people call God, the universe was formed from an infinite force. The difference between the two is largely semantics.

Largely semantics? Distinguishing the laws of nature from a personal God who thinks and feels is a semantic question?
Another letter in the same paper by Kim Foltz: “Unfounded accusations“:

The article indicated no such accusations about Professor Hedin. It sounds like he simply did what the course title suggested and pointed out the “Boundaries of Science.”

I hope the university will stand for the principle of academic freedom and will not bow to the well-funded intellectual bullies who have tried to influence this decision.

Yeah, and the existence of the Christian God (not some Hindu monkey god) is one of those boundaries.  And I love the characterization of me and the Freedom from Religion Foundation as “well-funded intellectual bullies.”  If only I was as well funded as the FFRF!

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and avowed atheist Jerry Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose complaints spurred the investigation, are ideological bullies with plenty of influence and financial clout. They have threatened legal action if their objections to Hedin’s teaching are not validated.
. . . The claim against Hedin is that he is in violation of the First Amendment for teaching religion. They should be rebuffed because nowhere is Hedin charged with talking about the Bible or Jesus. That would be a discussion of religion. Through his class, he has simply raised the possibility of intelligent design of life and our cosmos. That is not teaching religion.

I just love the title “avowed atheist”!  Do you ever hear “avowed Catholic” or “avowed Buddhist”?

And note again the “bully” trope, as if any outside monitoring of the first amendment, or of creationism is “bullying.” I suppose the organizations prosecuting the Dover School District for teaching ID were also “bullies”! Bullies, too, I guess, are the Ball State professors investigating Hedin’s behavior.

As forHedin not talking about the Bible or Jesus, it’s very clear he did, so Ether doesn’t know his facts.  Nor does he seem to recognize what anyone with two neurons to rub together knows: Intelligent Design is a discredited theory motivated solely by religion.  Judge Jones in the Dover case saw right though the “nonreligious” fiction.

50 Comments

  1. gbjames
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    sub

  2. Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    The DI has no evidence whatsoever in favour of ID, therefore they resort to use ad hominems against those people who has real evidence for evolution. And when their tactics/tricks are unmasked, they call “it’s a conspiracy”. It’s just pathetic.

  3. Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    //

  4. TJR
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    The “Xians as martyrs” trope does indeed seem alive and well. Passive-aggressive is their middle name.

    On this track, has anyone here read this recent book?

    • TJR
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:34 am | Permalink

      Sorry, seems to have put the whole thing in, not the link. I’ve remembered how to do this for youtube links but have clearly forgotten for amazon.

      • Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

        Meyer et al prevaricate about many things and then whine when they are called out. From the RationalWiki: A persecution complex is a term given to an array of psychologically complex behaviours, that specifically deals with the perception of being persecuted, for various possible reasons, imagined or real.

        People or groups who hold to marginal (non-mainstream) beliefs or theories often display some features of this malady, as a way of explaining why their views are not more widespread.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        I enjoy pointing out how infrequently they were actually persecuted in ancient Rome. Christians think they were fed to lions regularly when it rarely happened – who wants to watch a bunch of pacifists anyway? You need someone who is at least going to fight. :D

  5. Richard Page
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    What do these guys mean when they say “Darwinist” or “Darwinism”? If I accept current scientific understanding of general relativity, am I an “Einsteinist” who dogmatically ‘pushes’ “Einsteinism”? Who seriously talks this way? Someone should call them on this nonsense.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Yeah that jumped out at me too. I guess if you accept scientific facts you somehow become part of a rage culture called “Darwinianism”.

    • Sastra
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      I think they’re trying to play into the current distinction being drawn in the media between “Islam” and “Islamism.”

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        Well they do so in an infelicitous way seeing as there are no parallels to be drawn. They seem to base the whole attack on the assumptjon that accepting science is a type of religion. I suppose they don’t understand how people live without dogma and think for themselves.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      I have been fighting gravity ever since I turned 30, so am I an anti-Newtonian?

      • Richard Page
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        Yes, you are. You are being forcibly held down by rabid, dogmatic Newtonians who force nefarious Newtonism on you from their lofty authoritarian perches!

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

          Don’t forget well financed Newtonians!

          • Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink

            Those damned newtonians!

            • Jeff D
              Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink

              I dont’ care a fig about newtonians.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink

                I love you guys! :)

              • Posted June 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

                Thanks for your levity on this matter of gravity. You quite take the biscuit.

                /@

    • Robert Bray
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      Perhaps the godly can accept Einsteinian spacetime cosmology more readily than Darwinian evolution. The first allows for seeing the universe as a big mystery (god just is the universe), while the second denies any Homo sapiens any role whatsoever in that big mystery by taking away the soul.

      • Robert Bray
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

        [sorry for the redundant 'any'!]

      • Kevin
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Heh. You don’t listen to creationists much.

        Einstein is part of the “evilutionary” paradigm too. Cosmological evilution.

        There’s cosmological evilution, stellar evilution, chemical evilution, biogenic evilution, biologic evilution, and baby-eating cannibal scientismists who promote all of it.

      • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        A general relativity cosmology would be a Friedmann cosmology. Speaking as a layman with an astrobiology (and hence cosmology) interest, I don’t know if it is a mystery as much as where it came from.

        But I think in some form or other cosmologists either claim our universe doesn’t have an energy or that its energy, whatever it means, is zero. Susskind says the latter in his cosmology lectures. (Admittedly, he is a particle physicist, but he has done a lot on cosmology.) Especially a short work of Toinoni et al showed that such cosmologies as a system behaves as if their total energy is zero.

        Which means the universe is a result of a spontaneous process. (Again, Toinoni et al.) I think it means the magic “soul” of the universe is gone. Now you have to move it to what happened before our universe formed. Eg what laws are fundamental and if so, where did they arise?

        But as I have noted here before, I don’t think deism will stand as a potential idea for any longer period. I give it 1 – 2 decades, since that is the remaining acceptance time of multiverse theories. (With a new generation of physicists.)

        At the rate LHC is going, this is where we may end up. I am told that any supersymmetry that is found in 10 years, if ever, will not go all the way to predict the deviations from naturalness in the Higgs mass but be at least 1-2 orders of magnitude away. (Nina Arkani-Hamed, in an article on the Simon Foundation web site.) It will be akin to the nearly 3 sigma irregularities of the Planck universe – we may happen to be in a universe which as a class is 1 out of a 100.

        And supersymmetry is pretty much the remaining idea in the pipe, under Einstein’s dream of “naturalness” as a decisive factor. On the other hand we have learned in physics that it is apriori unnatural to have just one object as a result of a process. One electron field, but many electrons. Where is the constraint coming from that makes our universe unique, and enforces the idea of a mystery?

    • Notagod
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      Damned christian calorieists practicing the religion of christianism. They don’t have faith that god will provide so they set about eating this and eating that. Eating, eating, eating, that’s all the christian calorieists ever think about.

  6. Kieran
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Are they still going on about Richard Sternberg. He published a paper without it going through peer review and it was rightly rejected on review. The horse is dead, it has ceased to be, let the damn thing rot in peace and stop beating it.

  7. matt
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    “rabid.”

    “warpath.”

    hyperbole much?

  8. Sastra
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Darwinism is not just a science, not just a philosophical worldview supporting atheism and materialism, but a culture of rage and persecution.

    Look, the argument is that Intelligent Design is ‘religion’ AND/OR ‘pseudoscience.’ Take your pick. Either way, it’s not a legitimate scientific viewpoint which is open for honest debate in a science class. If someone wants to say that science increases their faith in God then they have to have a testable hypothesis. If they want to undermine a major scientific theory, then they also have to have a testable hypothesis.

    With the formation of the universe, whether you are talking about unified force theory or what many people call God, the universe was formed from an infinite force. The difference between the two is largely semantics.

    The difference between the two is the role of Mind, ffs. If “God” is stripped of agency, intention, intelligence, emotion, values, awareness, and/or consciousness then I suppose you might call it a “unified force theory” — but you won’t call it “God.” This has nothing to do with semantics; it has to do with the concepts which lie behind the words.

    The claim against Hedin is that he is in violation of the First Amendment for teaching religion. They should be rebuffed because nowhere is Hedin charged with talking about the Bible or Jesus.

    Yeah, right — “God” isn’t about ‘religion’ because He has a personal relationship with reality.

    • aspidoscelis
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      It’s also interesting that “religion” and “Christianity” are synonymized in that last quote. It’s understandable in the context (obviously the religion we’re talking about here is Christianity) but it’s also, I think, a symptom of the wider problem that people seem to love to jump to the defense of religion–but only under the assumption that religion = Christianity. It’s like it doesn’t occur to them that there are other religions out there for which they might not want university professors proselytizing.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        Agreed,ethnocentric much? It is also why they see atheism as a religion and “Darwinism” as a world view (that they made up#

  9. Jeff D
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    The whole of Indiana is not a “Southern State” (Geologically and culturally, our Mason-Dixon Line essentially runs down the center of U.S. Highway 40), but when roughly assessed in terms of religiosity, gun culture, hostility to or unfamilarity with science, and general anti-intellectualism, large parts of Indiana do resemble Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. We just have colder winters. But we have our better-educated, more cosmopolitan and more secular population centers, just as Southern States do.

    • aspidoscelis
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      “But we have our better-educated, more cosmopolitan and more secular population centers, just as Southern States do.”

      By which I assume you mean Bloomington. :-)

      I can’t think of any such enlightened communities north of US 40.

      • Jeff D
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink

        Visit West Lafayette sometime.

        • aspidoscelis
          Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:39 am | Permalink

          With all due respect… no.

        • Posted June 26, 2013 at 5:12 am | Permalink

          Hmmm Purdue, yes.

          announces: “Ladies and Gentlemen… it appears we have ourselves a READER.”

    • ladyatheist
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      There are a lot of victims of the holiness movement in the counties surrounding Ball State

  10. Robert Bray
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I’m a long-term professor in the humanities, life without parole you might say. What worries me most about l’affaire Hedin is not so much his foolish, fanatical behavior in class, but the debilitating sclerosis in the veins and arteries of so many institutions of higher learning in the U. S. Ball State is hardly unique in its defensiveness about self-regulation of diseases within it. If Ball State’s ‘auto-immune system’ can’t handle the likes of Hedin before he gives the whole a heart attack, then doctors who can do the job must be called in.

    Why cannot our colleges and universities recommit themselves to being universal? Not pitiful creatures bowing to politics or local ignorance, but strong bodies running out front in ‘truth’s marathon’?

    • Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      “Ball State is hardly unique in its defensiveness about self-regulation of diseases within it” completely agree.

  11. NewEnglandBob
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    To counter ‘avowed atheist’ we should change the designation of ‘Christian’ to ‘avowed zombie Jesus followers who confuse persecuted and prosecuted’

    • Sastra
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      I kind of like the idea of countering the phrase “avowed atheist” with “self-appointed Christian.”

  12. eric
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Hedin’s most vocal persecutor…

    I’ve followed pretty much every article you’ve posted on the subject. Haven’t seen the text of the letter you sent to BSU or FFRF, but still, if you are Hedin’s most vocal critic, he’s not experiencing anything close to persecution. In fact I’d say you’ve stuck quite admirably to a very academic tone. There are thesis defenses that get more acrimonious than your treatment of Hedin.

    Its somewhat ironic (but not at all surprising) that the ENV article calling you histrionic is more histrionic than any of your posts.

  13. Emerson
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    If someone wants to explore the matter a little bit more, here is a resume that indicates how these so called holy martyrs histories of the first centuries of christianity were created: “Holy Mother Church Invents Heroic Origins” – http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html
    As many people know today, the Romans were pragmatic governors: once you pay what they wanted, religion was a national/personal business. And Trajan (98-117), for example, wrote this:
    “But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.” – Trajan to Pliny, Letters 10.96-97.

  14. Prof.Pedant
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    The officialdom of Ball State is probably feeling vindicated at the moment: http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20130625/NEWS01/306250010/
    and

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf

  15. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    With the formation of the universe, whether you are talking about unified force theory or what many people call God, the universe was formed from an infinite force.

    The last defence of an apologist is when he/she starts spouting inanities or deepities. Of course there is no “force” that forms universes, nor happens any unification of field theories above Planck scale since spacetime would be gone.

    This deepity is alluding to a singularity. But the theory that cosmologists has to take seriously today as having formed our universe is inflation, and it happens far from Planck energy scales even. If memory serves, Susskind’s cosmology lectures have the potential energy on the flat plateu where inflation falls down as 10 or 20 orders of magnitude less than Planck energy.

    Here is where you can *maybe* talk of a pseudoforce. The fall happens at terminal velocity in a very viscous process as field fluctuations (IIRC) dissipates energy. So the pull of the fall and the push of the viscous dissipation works as a gradient of the potential, a force, over the scalar field of the inflaton. It is a very flat potential, according to the Planck observatory, so a miniscule force compared to what a Planck energy maximum potential would be capable of.

    What starts it all is some form of energy of action. With a flat universe, going back through inflation, it is at most the energy of a fluctuation AFAIK. Already Hawking in the 70’s described ways of how a universe could fluctuate into being, as a tunneling with “no boundary”.

    If anyone wants to call what looks to be a random, spontaneous fluctuation (at best, or maybe an undecided similar initial condition) for a being, he/she can be my guest. I’ll just note that the magic is gone, it is a natural process.

    • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
      Posted June 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      Came to think of it, if the inflaton field exists it should join the similarly scalar Higgs field as a force carrier.

      Yes, we are back up to 4-5 universal forces, if you accept electro-weak joining, or 5-6 fundamental forces. But as particle physicist Matt Strassler describes it in a recent post on his web site, the Higgs force is even weaker than the weak force. It _may_ have some influence on jet formation in particle accelerators, which is one of Strassler’s specialties I take it.

      Anyway, the inflatons are gone, simplest because they were massive particles that decayed when our universe left the inflaton plateau. Which means, unless I am sorely mistaken, that force too is akin to the Higgs force. Whatever it did at the time, it had to start out below Planck scales (or it wouldn’t admit an effective field theory) and goes away incredibly fast with distance.

      So _all_ the forces that you can implicate in forming our universe are weak or weak-ish.

  16. Posted June 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    As always in these cases, a simple thought experiment suggests itself:

    What would the situation be if his name was not Eric Hedin but Mohammed Hamallah, and if he used a reading list not of Christian but of Muslim apologists and theologians? Would he still get the same support from letters and editorials in that state?

    I think we all know the answer.

  17. Taylor M. Brown
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    The DI can’t seem to distinguish between criticism of Darwin’s Doubt (Stephen Meyer’s screed about how God an intelligent designer created the Cambrian explosion, and attempt to shut down the book.

    Should be…

    The DI can’t seem to distinguish between criticism of Darwin’s Doubt (Stephen Meyer’s screed about how God an intelligent designer created the Cambrian explosion [)] , and [an] attempt to shut down the book.

    Also…

    There are at least three reent students who have complained about Hedin’s proselytizing,

    *recent

  18. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Re: “I just love the title “avowed atheist”! Do you ever hear “avowed Catholic” or “avowed Buddhist”?”

    Certainly far less often.
    Google returns the following

    “avowed Catholic”
    18,400 results

    “avowed Buddhist”
    1,690 results

    “avowed atheist”
    65,000 results

    Top results on “avowed Catholic” are Paul Ryan an avowed Catholic also likes Ayn Rand.

  19. Diane G.
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    sub

  20. Romuald.
    Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    They’re used to give hits, not to take them. They don’t know how it feels, & react rather bad.

  21. Posted June 26, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    I (long ago) received a PhD in biology from Lehigh University. At that time there were several excellent courses that introduced me to evolution, so I was dismayed to learn that a creationist was there now. I am relieved to read the department’s position statement about “intelligent” design.

    I taught human anatomy at a major medical school for a number of years and anyone who thinks humans are products of any designer approaching intelligent is deluded. A freshman engineer a Lehigh could do better.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,586 other followers

%d bloggers like this: