Oklahoma Legislature Rushing to Pass Bill to silence Richard Dawkins' campus talk on evolution

[villager]

Source: Slashdot

"Notable evolutionary biologist, author, and speaker Richard Dawkins was recently invited to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma as part of the school's celebration of Charles Darwin. However, Oklahoma lawmakers are working to silence Dawkins with the passage of House Bill 1015 (RTF), which reads in part: '... the University of Oklahoma ... has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book "The God Delusion," and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma ...'"


<snip>

Read more: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/06/1726211

[BOSSHOG]

1. Why are there colleges in red states?

[mckara]

17. So Smaller States Can Have Football Teams

The Enlightenment should reach Oklahoma some time in the 22nd Century.

[enlightenment]

2. The stupid. It BURNS.

Would all the liberals remaining in Oklahoma please leave, so we can put a wall around the state and let those that remain destroy themselves?

[guitar man]

6. I've put in for a transfer

but I haven't been able to get out of here yet. :(

[fujiyama]

49. Good Luck!

I have to say, OK seems to have the worst legislators of any state. I mean their US Senate delegation alone is wretched - Coburn? Inhoffe? And it's one of some 3 states where McCain either did as well or better than Bush did in '04.

Hope you find your way to greener pastures...

[No Elephants]

50. Crossing my fingers for you! No one should have to suffer THAT much.

[Best_man23]

61. I really wish stupid would hurt

If all the liberals left OK, this would include our friend Bartcop (of Bartcop.com).

[wtmusic]

3. An invited speaker has to share the views of a majority of OK citizens?

Who's intolerant of diversity again? :silly:

[the other one]

4. Banned for "intolerance"

Does being conservative mean you have to give up your sense of irony?

[villager]

7. as the Republicans prove each and every day, it does...

n/t

[OKNancy]

10. It's a resolution to express "disapproval" - they can't Ban him

They won't be able to do a thing about it except make more people want to come!

[villager]

11. well, good point -- it *won't* physically "ban" him...

but the fact they're expending this much "official state" energy over it...

[KakistocracyHater]

62. yes while banks continue to fail-their values are showing

if your house was on fire & you had an idiot in your family (sorry 4 you)the idiot would ignore the kids & any animals & rush to protect the fish in the aquarium, or the steak in the fridge, or their cigars. It would be up to you to get the kids & family dog &/or cat.

This just shows the OK's priorities, what they rate critical vs save it for later.

[hunter]

76. They'd rush in to save their Bible and their U.S. flag.

Forget the wife and kids, that's the Word of God and the symbol of our nation!

[msanthrope]

74. Yes. In order to squelch cognitive dissonance and other

forms of learning one must give up irony, shame, and recognition of hypocrisy....

Otherwise, your Freeper head explodes.....

[sledgehammer]

5. Pathetic!

And isn't this unconstitutional?

These morans can use influence/protests/whatever to convince the University not to invite him (still wouldn't be the right thing, but at least it's not illegal).

But to consider legislation to pass a law to prevent someone from speaking???

Disgusting! Really is!

[OKNancy]

8. They aren't banning him. It's a resolution

by the nutjobs. Dawkins will be speaking tonight in a free lecture.
http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_064012306

[villager]

12. Thanks for the update, OKNancy! Pass along any others...!

n/t

[fascisthunter]

9. Afraid of the Truth? Awww... So He Uses Censorship

pay attention ditto-dumb dumbs... this is what censorship looks like.

[killbotfactory]

13. What the hell would give them the right to ban anyone from speaking at a university?

What asses.

[Blue_Tires]

14. I'm just surprised OU would invite him in the first place...

[demoborn47]

15. Oklahoma

No Effing Way!!! Oh and btw, STFU.

[jb5150]

16. A law???

to stop someone from talking?

[No Elephants]

51. Not to stop him. They can't. To express disapproval. Put another way, they are wasting

the money of Oklahoma taxpayers to make asses of themselves.

Thank God for the First and Fourteenth Amendment and the SCOTUS bench that held that both apply to the states.

[Veruca Salt]

67. Thanks for clarifying!

I'm still bent out of shape that they'd even SAY something like this!

And they're still fascists.

[Metta]

18. This is another version of book burning. Happy karma.

These people are scared to death that what they believe might be wrong.

[No Elephants]

53. Not quite. He still gets to give the speech. It's a very similar mentality, though, constrained

by the Constitution.

[Joey Liberal]

19. I live in Oklahoma

Yes, it's still in the stone age here.

[tanyev]

56. Oklahoma, the armpit of Texas.

:P

[Joey Liberal]

59. More like the asshole of Missouri

It's not a fun place to live. Right wingers and bible thumping morons everywhere. Sen. Inhofe. Nuff said.

[SemperEadem]

20. Is their faith so weak, so much of a shell, so easily trampled

that they fear the words of someone who doesn't think what they do? Because it sure sounds like it.

Their god must not be great after all if they're this threatened by the words of one man.

Do they not understand that there is a first amendment?

The citizens of ok don't attend that school. Students (who pay tuition) attend the school and if they don't want to go hear the lecture, then stay the fuck home and clean your house, do some reading for class or something else productive that needs to be done.

[mitchum]

58. That is the motivation of all religious bullies...

an underlying doubt about the certainty of their superstitious delusions

[defendandprotect]

65. yes ...

[damntexdem]

21. I can't stand Dawkins -- but a resolution against him is stupid.

It is stupidity perpetrated by those who lack to brains to debate him.

[Zhade]

77. Is it his grasp of the facts that you hate?

NT!

[Posteritatis]

79. Someone can be correct and still be an asshole (nt)

[glinda]

22. Keep em stupid so you can control them

[RedCloud]

23. Academice freedom should be observed.

A university that is frightened of thought itself shall not long survive.

[MilesColtrane]

24. I have a feeling that Dean Bell and Dr.Matthews will tell the Oklahoma...

...legislature to gargle their balls.

The home page of the OU Dept. of Zoology has a prominent button that says "Evolution is a Fact. Evolutionary theory is a cornerstone of biology."
Clicking on it leads you to this statement:

OU Department of Zoology Statement on Evolution
Passed by unanimous vote of the faculty 9/27/06, and supported by the OU Faculty Senate 10/9/2006

Science is a powerful way of generating new knowledge about the natural world through observation and hypothesis testing. If our children are to tackle the increasingly complex biological challenges facing society, both medical and environmental, they need the best possible science education. Sadly, even as Oklahoma seeks new economic opportunities in biotechnology, we are hobbled by some of the weakest science standards in the nation. For example, evolution, a concept that underlies all of modern biology, receives little or no attention in the state’s K-12 curricula. In the 150 yrs. since Darwin, evolutionary theory has spurred entirely new disciplines of biology (e.g. biogeography, behavioral and evolutionary ecology, evolutionary medicine, genomics).

Although in popular speech the word 'theory' means 'a guess', in science ‘theory’ refers to an explanation supported by fact. Although even the most successful theory can never be proven, any scientific theory can be refuted by facts that are at odds with its predictions. Indeed, the most useful theories are those that generate many testable predictions and thus leave themselves particularly susceptible to being proven wrong. It is this quality that most distinguishes a scientific concept from a non-scientific one.

The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms (e.g. non-random natural selection acting on random mutation) by which organisms change over time (microevolution), become more complex, and diversify into new species (macroevolution). Evolution is the central unifying theory of biology, supported by independent evidence from paleontology, geology, genetics, molecular biology and genomics, developmental biology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. Even though new information from nearly every field of science has been applied, attempts to falsify evolutionary theory using the scientific method have failed. As is true for any active science, the details of the theory are continually debated as new data are collected. However, there is no controversy in the scientific community about the fact of evolution.

Biological evolution, defined as genetic change in species over time, is an observable fact. It is a fact that insects evolve resistance to pesticides, that new diseases arise when viruses evolve the ability to invade new hosts, and that humans have created new species using the same mechanisms that produce species naturally. Furthermore, the evidence based on facts from molecular biology and geology (i.e. gene sequences, dated fossils) clearly indicates that all living species, including our own, share a common ancestor that is over 3 billion years old.

In science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including Intelligent Design creationism, offer no scientific alternative to evolution because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that 'both sides' of the issue are taught is to advocate that non-science be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic.

We thus oppose any attempt to exclude evolution from the science curricula or to redefine science to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations. We urge all citizens to learn about science and work to ensure that our children receive a first-class science education.

Useful resources:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Institute of Biological Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
National Association of Biology Teachers
National Center for Science Education
National Science Teachers Association
Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education
Understanding Evolution
Evolution, Science, and Society - white paper supported by major biology societies
TB Fordham Foundation - assessment of state curricula standards
Society for Neuroscience -- Statement on Evolution and ID

The President of the University of Oklahoma will tell the legislature the same thing, but without hurting their little feelings.

[theblasmo]

27. I signed this...

I believe. I did sign something to this affect at some point, and helped take it around the Engl. Dept. to get signatures. Lately, Oklahoma has really tilted to the right -- so far that I had to re-balance my damned tires. There are some progressive voices in the state, but the asshats keep shouting us down. It's still embarrassing to have been a part of the state that voted for McCain by the highest percentage.

Does everyone know his wife is Lalla Ward? Romana 2 on Doctor Who? She's just as smart and well-spoken.

[southernyankeebelle]

25. What a Moron

I GUESS FREE SPEACH ONLY APPLIES TO THE PEOPLE LIVING IN RED STATES. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? I ALWAYS LIKE TO LISTEN TO DIFFERENT OPINIONS BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY MIND I STILL BELIEVE IN GOD. ARE THEY AFRAID OF OTHER OPINIONS?

[No Elephants]

52. Respectfully, believing in God does not require believing in a 7 day, evolution-free creation. God

is not small.

[Vinca]

26. Does this mean ixnay on the first amendment?

Funny . . . they seem so crazy about honoring the second amendment.

[derby378]

28. Would these same jokers pass a resolutions against a speaker from the Klan?

I'd like to see them do that...

[sasquatch]

29. Apperantly the state of Oklahoma is trying to out stupid the South

They couldn't beat an SEC school in football so they need to try and do it in teh stupid.

[Jefferson23]

30. Just what are they afraid of?

[baldguy]

31. I guess they have nothing better to do?

[FLyellowdog]

32. Just when I think we're making progress...

something stupid like this shows up. What is wrong with people? :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

33. Gotta call it as I see it: Richard Dawkins is the conservatives' Rick Warren.

A lot of you won't see it, but the attempts to exclude Richard Dawkins from one venue (a talk on evolution) based on his views in another (religion) parallel the attempts to exclude Rick Warren from Obama's inauguration based on his opposition to gay marriage.

On edit: I guess they're not trying to exclude him after all. Which would make the OK legislators more tolerant!

[msongs]

37. hmm religion vs science is = to religion versus rights of human beings? hardly think so

[Eryemil]

43. This. n|t

[Canuckistanian]

41. When atheists start pressuring governments to ban religious speakers, I'll agree

But until that faraway (and probably non-existent) time, RELIGIONS ARE IN CHARGE of government.

[Bill McBlueState]

57. right, because a campus lecture

is just like the inauguration of the President of the United States.

As an atheist, I'd be opposed to either Rick Warren or Richard Dawkins telling me about his thoughts on god(s) at the inauguration. But I have no objection to either of them giving all the campus lectures he wants.

[spamlet2002]

34. how unfortunate

they're not thinking it through. if they think this is anything but good for him and his future projects, they're seriously deluding themselves. they're practically giving him local interviews, not to mention this plum of an ice-breaker for all future speaking engagements, lol

[NancyBotwin]

35. Wait, doesn't that make them intolerant?

They are contradicting themselves. With this bill, THEY are demonstrating an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking. Hypocrisy.

[edc]

36. Proposition 8

:patriot: Ken Starr today argued before the California Supreme Court in defense of proposition 8 by stating that the people "have the raw power to define rights," In other words, Mr. Starr has proposed that the people of California may revise the state's constitution (and presumably the U.S. Constitution as well) by ballot initiative, referendum or simple vote by the state legislature rather than by legislative amendment processes legally required by law. Mr. Starr specifically stated that his interpretation would include the First Amendment. This is the most radical assertion for the expansion of State's Rights since secession. I doubt that the geniuses of the Oklahoma legislature just pulled this out of their own asses without a prior reaming by the national reich-wing treason machine.

[Turbineguy]

38. Never miss a chance to

promote ignorance

[depakid]

39. Nobody riles up the fundies like Dawkins!

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. Get-R-Dumb.

[Dr Fate]

42. Good- if it works, more people will be curious about his books.

My guess is that banning him would actually make more people aware of his works.

When I was a student, I made a point of reading any book I was told not to read.

My favorite is "The Blind Watchmaker", BTW.

[Zhade]

44. Fucking morons. Scared of the truth.

NT!

[Ian David]

45. How dare anyone trifle with the followers of ancient Bronze Age superstitions! n/t

[struggle4progress]

46. House Bill 1015 seems to be a rather silly little resolution, expressing the displeasure

of the Legislature that Dawkins was invited to speak

The resolution does not actually seek to bar him from campus, though it does seem intended to intimidate university administration

It primarily shows that some in the Legislature have too much time on their hands and too little interest in accomplishing meaningful things.

Still, it is exactly the kind of controversy that Dawkins has deliberately sought to create with his rhetoric, which is carefully tailored to offend people:

The flying spaghetti monster

Why are we here on earth? To Richard Dawkins, that's a remarkably stupid question. In a heated interview, the famous biologist insists that religion is evil and God might as well be a children's fantasy.
By Steve Paulson

...most moderate religious people are appalled by the apocalyptic thinking of religious extremists.

... they have no right to be appalled because, in a sense, they brought it on the world by teaching people, especially children, the virtues of unquestioned faith ...

What about the old adage that science deals with the "how" questions and religion deals with the "why" questions?

I think that's remarkably stupid, if I may say so ...

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/print.html

There's no question in my mind that the theory of evolution is a beautiful sweeping synthesis and provides at present the only credible naturalist approach to the origin of life on earth. There is every reason to teach that theory to people. There's no reason to contaminate the discussion with ugly, ad hominem attacks that blame ordinary people for the vicious acts of a few hate-filled extremists or that call people with different views "stupid" -- which is Dawkins' philosophical style

[caseymoz]

47. That would be highly unconstitutional, and I hope Dawkins defies it. (nt)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. They'll just make more people curious to see him.

A friend of mine went to Oklahoma State in the 1960s.

Thomas Altizer was supposed to speak on campus about "The Death of God".

The Board of Regents or whoever banned him from speaking on campus.

So he spoke at the Catholic Student Union. What happened? MORE people came to see him speak.

I think they probably did the same thing with the Berrigan Brothers.

[NoodleyAppendage]

54. And...intolerance of dumbass Xtian Oklahomians is a bad thing??? n/t

J

[OKNancy]

55. UPDATE: Dawkins lecture draws thousands at OU

http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_066011126

Dawkins lecture draws thousands at OU
Vocal protester condemns British scientist

By Adam Scott

A lecture given by evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins on the University of Oklahoma campus Friday night was received with varying levels of applause and cheers by a generally sympathetic crowd.
The only disruption during the evening was a protester who spoke up during the question-and-answer session following the hour-long lecture.

The man carrying a yellow legal pad, who described himself as a biologist, condemned Dawkins, telling him to "shut the f--- up" and that the controversial scientist, a self-professed agnostic with strong atheistic leanings, would "burn in hell."
Dawkins gave a free public talk titled "The Purpose of Purpose" at 7 p.m. Friday in McCasland Field House on the OU Norman campus.
Most response to the lecture and to the man giving it was significantly more positive, with cheers and applause as Dawkins took the stage dying down into dwindling chuckles only after he admonished the crowd, "You haven't heard me yet."

Dawkins opened by saying he did not wish to "blow (his) own trumpet, but it isn't everybody who's the subject of legislation in Oklahoma," as text depicting Oklahoma House Resolution 1014, authored by Todd Thomsen (R-District 25, serving Hughes, McClain, Pontotoc and Pottawatomie counties) and strongly opposing "the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University," was displayed on a screen behind the scientist.

more at link

[Uncle Joe]

60. This was a most profound question from Dawkins, and why would people like Thomsen

believe the First Amendment ever became the first one?

After objecting strongly to H.R. 1014's assertion, as Dawkins said "that the University of Oklahoma should only hear ideas that the citizens of Oklahoma agree with," the biologist then asked, "What on earth is a university for, if it only reinforces opinions that students already hold?"

Thanks for the encouraging update, OKNancy.:thumbsup:

[Veruca Salt]

72. Thank you for the update!

That is quite an awesome follow-up!

[Posteritatis]

80. Did anyone here see the lecture? (nt)

[defendandprotect]

63. K&R

[defendandprotect]

64. "Cultural diversity" is expressed in "The God Delusion" and evolution ...!!!

Let's see some "cultural diversity" in organized patriarchal religion--!!!

[Taverner]

69. Cultural Diversity in the Bible means kill anyone who looks different than you

[defendandprotect]

71. The most violent book ever written --- making rule by male gender "normal."

[Taverner]

73. Yep - gives a pass for genocide, but death for boys kissing

Sounds like something I'D want to base my life on....NOT

[Veruca Salt]

66. So, as I understand it... they want to ban freedom of speech.

Fascists. :mad:

[Taverner]

68. And once again its STUPID FUNDIE TRICKS!!!!

Stupid bigots

[kiranon]

70. Just when you think Republicans can't get any dumber they do something like this.

[Doctor_J]

75. We're not going to get back to world leadership while there is so much mental illness

in the red states. And that probably won't be cured until hate radio is neutralized in one way or another.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. "intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking"

Oh my goodness. That would be funny if it weren't so sad.

(And I'm no Dawkins fan, either).