Discovery Institute Attacks Ball State's Decision to Allow Atheistic Seminar

The Discovery Institute has written an open letter to Jo Ann Gora, the president of Ball State University, asking her to be consistent with regard to the treatment of protected speech on campus.  Christian NewsWire reports:  

"If Ball State is going to ban faculty speech favoring intelligent design by claiming that it would violate the separation of church and state, then it must apply the same ban to faculty speech that promotes atheism or attacks intelligent design in the classroom," says Dr. John West, Vice President of Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute is asking BSU to investigate its honors seminar "Dangerous Ideas." The sole textbook used in the course is an anthology edited by a prominent atheist in which the authors assert that "Science Must Destroy Religion," that "There is no God; no Intelligent Designer; no higher purpose to our lives," and even that scientists should function as our society's "high priests." The book contains an afterword by atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

In her published remarks on the issue, this is what President Gora said:

“Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” President Jo Ann Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies' independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science.”

The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”

Nowhere in there did President Gora ban faculty speech on the discussion of intelligent design on campus.  Instead, Ball State is banning the teaching of intelligent design in science classes because it is not established science (it is not science at all, for that matter).   The two are very different things.  Leave it to the Discovery Institute to conflate them.

The other peculiar thing here is which First Amendment clause has been used.  By demanding that the atheistic seminar be investigated, focusing on the religious nature of the course and contrasting it with intelligent design, John West is focusing on the establishment clause rather than the free speech clause and, thus, is agreeing that intelligent design is religious, in nature.  Otherwise, why would he care about a philosophy seminar promoting atheism?  This is a substantial shift away from the standard position of the Discovery Institute, which has continually put forth the idea that ID is not tied to religious practice or theology.  If it is going to be argued that banning it is a violation of the establishment clause then it must be. 

It is difficult for me to believe that this is what they really meant to say or that they could have made such a rookie mistake.

Strange Things Afoot in Kentucky: The Creation Museum and Disappearing Comments

A few days ago I ran a story on the new zip lines at the Creation Museum that was somewhat disparaging.  Apparently, I missed one of the comments, made by an assistant manager of the Cincinnati Museum Center, which went like this:

This is not a museum, and this is further proof of that. Please stop referring to it as such. They are not an accredited museum by any association of museums. It is a theme park that misleads the public and it is a pockmark on our region. The fact that someone profits by misrepresenting their faith as science to children and families is shameful. When we wonder why America is falling behind in science education, it is because places like this are allowed to exist. I’m glad to see that their attendance is declining despite generous handouts from the state of Kentucky at the expense of their university funding.

Ken Ham responded to this comment directly on the Answers in Genesis site. He wrote, in part:

It’s interesting that an assistant manager at the Cincinnati Museum Center took the time to attack the Creation Museum. Now, we realize he’s not one of the top people at the museum center and has nothing to do with content, but Percy’s comments reflect on the entire museum center. While we at Answers in Genesis do not agree with the teaching of evolution and millions of years at the Cincinnati Museum Center (e.g., in the Museum of Natural History and Science), nevertheless we don’t discourage people from visiting there and we don’t publicly attack them in such a manner as Percy has done to the Creation Museum.

Aside from the contradiction present in the second sentence, Ham's statements ring hollow.  He has publicly attacked other organizations and individuals that promote an OEC model, and has been blackballed by Christian organizations because of it.  Ham also writes:

Perhaps Percy needs to look up the definition of museum. The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that a museum is “an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also: a place where objects are exhibited.”

Well, PZ Myers hopped all over this one:

So, is Disneyland a museum? A jewelry store? A church? Because you could claim that all of those fit his dictionary definition. A dictionary is a rough guide to common usage, not a definitive explanation of meaning.

Then Ham obliviously makes it worse. He cites other summaries of what constitutes a museum, in particular the American Alliance of Museums Accreditation, and notes that the Cincinnati Museum Center is accredited.

The Creation “Museum” is not. It’s not ever going to be accredited by any legitimate agency. Percy was exactly right: it’s a theme park, equivalent to a Halloween haunted house on a bloated budget, and it is little more than a colossal joke.

No response from Ham on that one yet.

Cincinnati.com deserves a black eye for their handling of this, though, because the original comment that created the ruckus to begin with is no longer on the article page. It has been removed. It is legitimate free speech and should have remained.

To wrap things up, a story appeared yesterday indicating that there was now peace between the two "museums":

“Leaders representing both museums spoke on Sunday. The Creation Museum was assured that the assistant manager in question at the Cincinnati Museum Center is a front-line staff person and is not in a CMC leadership role, and his opinions were his alone and not CMC’s.”

Okay, fine. But if you are going to go through the trouble to make this statement, why remove the comment?  I left the following one on the newer story:

It is ironic that this story exists because of a comment that was made in the original story about the zip lines at the Creation Museum and yet, if you go to the original story, the comment that created the ruckus has been removed. That's free speech for ya.

Update: it seems that all of the comments on the original story have been removed except two that are of no value to anyone.  Not a good day for the First Amendment