Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Bill Outlaws Discrimination Against Creationists In Academia

Posted by Soulskill on from the descent-of-man dept.

ndogg writes "There is a Texas bill, HB 2454, proposed by Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler, that will outlaw discrimination against creationists in colleges and universities. More specifically, it says, 'An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"

4 of 1,251 comments (clear)

  1. Sure by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can submit their papers for peer review, just like everyone else. Or does "Scientific Scrutiny" count as "Discrimination" these days?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  2. Re:yes but... by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    actually, this bill is discrimination against every other religion that's out there. So I'm amazed they will try to do this. A law against "discrimination of all religions" is different than a law against discrimination of a single religion. This would be laughed out of courts and overturned pretty fast if it ever passed and was challenged.

  3. Politically motivated Pseudo Fairness by golodh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's the pernicious thing about this proposed bill. It sounds "fair enough" to someone who doesn't know what it means.

    To be sure, discrimination is the whole point of academia, that is discrimination on basis of academic merit. People who cannot show academic rigour are vigorously discriminated against (e.g. they will not get tenure, they will not get their articles published in the mainstream journals, and they will not get recognition). Only in that way are shoddy work and pseudo-science kept at bay. Most of the time.

    And yes, that's all very "elitist" because Joe Sixpack simply no more capable of judging is someone is or is not academically capable than he is of analysing a mathematical proof, a statistical test, a laboratory result, or judging if a medical diagnosis is right. If Joe Sixpack were so clued-up he'd be hired as a researcher or a professional. Only he isn't, for excellent reasons.

    As Creationism lacks all and any academic merit, it is no more than reasonable to be able to refuse people who subscribe to it from joining the Biology faculty.

    Despite its name, "Evolution Theory" is not a mere "theory". On the contrary. There is both an enormous existing body of solid and well-documented evidence for Evolution Theory, and it is corroborated on a continuous basis by just about every on-going field research (from bacteria to beetles to birds to elephants and all kind of plant life). This makes it a *well-tested* and *well-verified* theory, which is why it is at the basis of contemporary Biology.

    It wouldn't be a problem is a creationist joined a liberal arts faculty, the maths faculty, or the civil engineering department. Those academic fields are sufficiently fare removed from creationism that they will not be impacted.

    But for those who would join the Biology faculty the standard is somewhat higher: they must first show that they know in detail that they know what they are talking about (as in passing exams). After that, if they wish to dispute the foundations of the subject area they wish to don a mantle of authority on, they must first *disprove* with specificity what they dispute, in a scientifically acceptable way. For example in the course of their PhD research.

    Then and only then can they be admitted (and they usually will be).

    All this is needed to ensure that no *religious* arguments creep into the debate, because religion has no overlap with science and should not be confused with it.

    Most of the world gets this, only the US (well certain groups within the US) is in the unique position that it starts blurring the line again centuries after the separation between Church and State and the decoupling of Theology from the Sciences during the Renaissance. It is interesting to note that in this the US finds itself in the company of Islamic Extremists, who too wish to assert the authority of their particular interpretation of word of their particular deity as paramount over reason, dispute, or evidence.

  4. In defense of creationists by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forrest Mims is a creationist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims

    I read his engineering notebooks and built circuits out of them. I will be forever grateful to him for that. It was the most fun I ever had in science, and I learned a lot of useful stuff.

    It blew me away when I found out that a guy that smart and cool was a creationist. But there are a lot of engineers who believe in Bible-belt creationism.

    If Mims were proposed to teach an engineering course, there's no doubt that he's qualified. If he were to teach a biology course, maybe not. If he were to teach a general science course, I don't know.

    But that's a decision for the department to make, not the Texas legislature.

    This doesn't prevent us from laughing at creationists.