Freethinkers of UTA
Promoting Science and Reason at the University of Texas at Arlington
Darwin Day Celebrations at UTA
Darwin Day Celebrations at UTA
Secular
Student Alliance Board Secretary Becky Robinson leads the Freethinkers
of the University of Texas at Arlington. Here, she writes about her
group's exciting and successful events on Darwin Day this year.As we did last year, the Freethinkers of the University of Texas at Arlington planned an all-day Darwin Day event on February 12th, the 199th birthday of Charles Darwin. We hoped to spread awareness of science and education, mixed in with some political activism and good old celebration with birthday cake!
Our Darwin Day festivities began with a tabling event in which we were set up in the University Center with a table full of information both on the group and on evolution. We had handouts with our spring schedule and an evolution FAQ in an attempt to address common misperceptions about the theory of evolution.
During our tabling event, we had people fill out postcards in support of sound science in Texas classrooms. The Texas Freedom Network’s “Stand Up For Science” campaign is collecting these postcards to then mass mail them to the Texas Board of Education to show that we, the voters of Texas, are paying attention to their upcoming textbook selections. For those of you who do not follow Texas politics, our creationist-laden Texas State Board of Education will be choosing the new textbooks for science and health later this year. Since Texas is one of the biggest consumers of textbooks, many smaller states go along with what Texas chooses, as the more books that are produced, the cheaper they are.
Our Darwin Day continued as we had UTA biology professor Dr. Tim Henry give a talk about the history behind evolution, various creationist legends, and how the Christian creation myth is recycled from earlier creation myths. Evolutionary psychologist Dr. Roger Mellgren spoke about his field of study and how we can find evolutionary patterns in our behavior across cultures.
Following the talks, we paused to eat some Darwin birthday cake and
socialize. We continued on with an Activist Training on the Texas
Board of Education in an attempt to bring more awareness to the recent
events taking place that seem to favor the far-right faction of the
Board. We finished up our Darwin Day by viewing the documentary A Flock of Dodos.All-in-all, it was a long and eventful day. We hope we accomplished our goals of bringing to light our group, the subject of evolution, and the current battle with the creationists in Texas. To us, Darwin Day is about education, outreach, and fun. We are already looking forward to next year, where we will have to outdo ourselves for the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday.
SC committee quashes call for meditation, prayer room
| SC committee quashes call for meditation, prayer room |
|
|
|
| Written by Abigail Howlett | |
| Wednesday, 12 March 2008 07:47 PM | |
|
A resolution asking for a prayer or meditation room was killed at Tuesday night’s Student Congress committee meeting. The resolution called for a nondenominational reflection room, but died with four votes against and two abstentions. William Knisley, SC community affairs chair, said the committee voted against it because their research showed no permanent space available on campus, and they felt housing different religious organizations in one room would create problems. SC science senator Marjana Sarker said she originally authored the resolution because she thought the university needed a common prayer and quiet room. “I think that something like this would really promote diversity and unity, and make people understand each other better,” Sarker said. Though Sarker is Muslim, she said she wanted to make it clear that the room would have been for every student. Becky Robinson, graduate psychology student and Free Thinkers of UTA president, said she didn’t understand why the resolution was needed. She said she feels there are plenty of quiet spaces on campus. “[Free Thinkers of UTA] just think it should be an even playing ground for all faiths, including those who have none,” Robinson said. “It seems like a bit much to expect the university to provide it.” Organizations are permitted to reserve and use buildings and grounds as long as it doesn’t contradict the constitutional and statutory restrictions on the use of state property for religious or political purposes, according to Section 1 of the UT System rules and regulations. Carter Bedford, Student Governance and Organizations associate director, said any organization could come to him and reserve a room. “Room reservation policies are there for students in organizations, but I am not sure about availability every day,” Bedford said. He also said he couldn’t guarantee the same room every time. Changing rooms every day would be confusing and a last resort, said Azim Ansari, architecture freshman and Muslim Student Association president. “If you have 30 people showing up at a different room every time, there would be so many communication errors,” Ansari said. UTA is not the only university to have students request a reflection room. Southern Methodist University has a quiet room for students to get away, said Aisha U-kiu, SMU political science senior and Muslim Student Association president. She said the room houses about 20 students and is for all groups on campus, though the Muslim students use it the most. “Whatever faith you are from, college is a time when you are swamped with all sorts of things,” U-kiu said. “You need a place to get away from it all.” She said SMU helped accommodate Muslim students by reserving four rooms for a Friday prayer time. Because the Muslim faith has specific requirements for praying, three of the rooms are used for praying while the fourth room holds their shoes and belongings. The university helped the students acquire the fourth room because their shoes, which were left in the hall, were disturbing other students. U-kiu said SMU’s Student Senate has been working with about 150 members of its Muslim Student Association to improve accommodations. John Hall, Administration and Campus Operations vice president, said he thought the resolution was a church and state issue. He also said what the room was named would impact establishing a room to pray or meditate. “If you called it the ‘prayer room’ it would probably raise the eyebrows of some,” Hall said. |
Radio Interview with Becky Robinson
Becky Robinson was recently interviewed on The Samantha Clemens Show on WMFO 91.5 FM. The audio files are posted on Sam Clemens' website: http://causeandeffectworld.com/blog1/2007/04/23/freethinkers-secularists-humanists-a-view-from-texas/
Of Science, Fact and Fiction
Jon Snow has written a response to Daniel Holcomb's ridiculous article:
http://www.theshorthorn.com/new/archives/2007/spring/041107/o03.asp
Of Science, Fact and Fiction
Science can give us information about the past
Re: “O Ye of Too Much Faith,” March 9.
Daniel Holcomb suggested that evolution is not scientific — or, at the very least, that evolution is an example of “bad” science.
Chuck Missler, engineer and biblical scholar, posed a similar argument. If the creation of life from non-life requires only that matter be subjected to energy, he asks, how come we don’t observe, every now and then, new life popping out when we open a can of peanut butter?
Missler commits a fallacy here. Evolution and the origin of life, though similar, are two different fields of inquiry. The latter asks where life came from and is theoretical. Evolution, on the other hand, considers the processes involved in the transformation of life-forms.
That evolution occurs should no longer be debated. The fact that a French poodle didn’t exist prior to the domestication of animals is one proof. Evolution, in this sense, is artificial selection. Natural selection is, strictly speaking, about “natural” processes. The science is pretty solid, albeit controversial among certain religious creeds.
Holcomb’s argument is similarly fallacious, though a more damning indictment of science. “Science can only explain what is happening now, and not in the past,” he says. If that’s the case, then why even bother with it? We might as well throw history into the dustbin as well. A social science, history is considered by most to be weaker than the so-called “hard” sciences. Yet those who deny the Holocaust or question the moon landing are called wackos.
The historical process is evidence-based inference. You may not have been there, but you can infer that it happened based on the evidence. Holcomb grants that you may have evidence but claims that you can’t infer anything from that. He might as well debate whether or not the Civil War occurred. He wouldn’t have to alter his argument.
The past is knowable even though our knowledge of it may be imperfect. Science is one tool that allows us to better understand the past, so that we can make sense of the present and have some hope for the future.
—Jon Snow is a political science senior.
Jon Snow
And here is Jon's unedited version:
Chuck Missler, engineer and biblical author, commits what those in the business of conducting experimental science call a logical fallacy. If the creation of life from non-life requires only that matter be subjected to energy, he says, how come we don’t observe, every now and then, new life popping out when we open a can of peanut butter? For some people, that argument is persuasive. A detailed response is not the purpose of this column, but let’s suffice it to say that the environment of the earth’s surface billions of years ago is not the same as a can of peanut butter that’s been sitting in your pantry for however many months. (Warning: If you have a million-year-old can of peanut butter sitting in your pantry, GET RID OF IT!)
Missler commits a logical fallacy when he claims to have debunked evolution. Evolution and the origin of life, though similar (we’re talking about biology after all), are two different fields of inquiry. The latter asks where did life come from, and is very theoretical. Evolution, on the other hand, is about the processes involved in the transformation of life-forms. That evolution occurs is no longer debatable. The fact that your French poodle didn’t exist prior to the domestication of animals is one proof. Evolution, in this sense, is artificial selection. Natural selection is, strictly speaking, about “natural” processes. Again, the science is pretty solid, albeit controversial among certain religious creeds.
Holcomb’s argument is similarly fallacious, though a more damning indictment of science. “Science can only explain what is happening now, and not in the past,” he says. If that’s the case, then why even bother with it? We might as well throw history into the dustbin as well. A social science, history is considered by most to be weaker than the so-called “hard” sciences. And yet, those who deny the Holocaust or question the moon landing are called “wackos.”
The historical process is evidentiary-based inference. You may not have been there, but you can infer that it happened based on the evidence. Holcomb grants that you may have evidence but claims that you can’t infer anything from that. He might as well debate that the Civil War never occurred as to whether evolution is science. He wouldn’t have to alter his argument.
The past is knowledgeable even though our knowledge of it may be imperfect. The scientific method is one tool that allows us to better understand the past, so that we can make sense of the present and have some hope for the future.
Here We Go Again. . .
Another article has been published in the Shorthorn. This is a response to my article:
http://www.theshorthorn.com/new/archives/2007/spring/030907/o03.asp
Guest Column
O Ye of Too Much Faith
Evolution is no more scientific than creation
Click to enlarge
The Shorthorn: Picture BlurbBecky Robinson, Freethinkers of UTA president, wrote a guest column recently (“More Freethinking Needed,” March 2) defending evolution. Unfortunately, she misrepresented science and the origins debate in her column.
The gist of the essay was that evolution is science in and of itself. That is not the case.
First, the statistic from http://www.religioustolerance.org that stated 99.85 percent of scientists believe in evolution was from a 1987 issue of Newsweek. Not only is this outdated, but there is no way to tell if it is a real statistic or how the participants were selected. A search of statistical databases revealed no statistics on scientists’ beliefs in evolution or creation. As usual, the support for evolution is exaggerated, if not entirely off.
Secondly, the author missed the boat when she defined science. Science can only explain what is happening now, and not in the past. Scientific experimentation rests entirely on events that can be observed at the time of their occurrence and repeated in experiments. The claim that men and apes split from a common ancestor does not meet such requirements.
The technical terminology for this is the scientific rule of validity. For a measure to be valid, it must measure the exact event hypothesized at the time of its occurrence. This is also true according to the Principle of Falsification, which requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable, hence, testable. In other words, past history will never be scientific, no matter how it is represented. This means all ideas of origins are based on presuppositions.
Everyone has a set of beliefs that rely on presuppositions, or assumptions. In the origins debate, these are all that exist. This is because science cannot test past events. We do have facts — evidence or data — but their stories only exist in the past. These facts do not speak for themselves — they must be interpreted from our assumptions. In fact, everything is evidence, and we all have it. A pet in the home is evidence, but that does not mean we can know the story of its ancestors.
A discussion of evolution that gets this far usually ends up backing evolution into a corner, where the only recourse is to claim evolution is scientific because it is happening now. Examples of so-called “evolution in action” are misrepresentations of what is going on biologically. Natural selection — discovered by creationist Edward Blyth 25 years before Darwin’s work — reshuffles genetic information already present in the genome.
This is simply variation, not evolution. Evolution needs new, previously nonexistent genetic information to turn bacteria into biologists. A genetic “change” is not enough. This leaves mutations, which is usually the last defense for evolution. Mutations, however, are also not evolution, as they are copying mistakes that cause a loss or corruption of genetic information. As can be seen, nothing in science suggests that today’s chemical soup can turn into tomorrow’s chemistry teachers.
That conclusion is a matter of blind faith.
— Daniel Holcomb is a sociology junior.
Daniel Holcomb
Articles in the Shorthorn
Cliff Hale had a brief encounter with the Freethinkers of UTA during our Darwin Day event. He wrote an article about his experience:
http://www.theshorthorn.com/new/archives/2007/spring/021607/o03.asp
Liberate your ‘Free’ thinking
Open yourself to other viewpoints
The Freethinkers of UTA had tables set up, literature displayed and a public address system wishing passersby a “Happy Darwin Day” in the University Center on Monday.
I stopped and asked if the group had ever really looked at the evolution debate’s other side. The leader, Becky Usher, said she had been raised in the church. I clarified that I was talking about science, not religion. She had never heard of the Institute for Creation Research, so I knew she was unaware of the best available contra-evolution science.
I mentioned that the folks at the institute are published scientists and professors with multiple doctorates in fields including geology and physics. One of the trio at the table changed the subject inadvertently and our conversation died, as I had to get to my next class.
Before I got out of earshot, a bystander remarked that he had heard of a Ph.D. who believed in Bigfoot. The only reason the bystander would bring up that anecdote is to discount the institute’s experts.
The group members made a point of boasting that 99-point-whatever percent of “experts” agreed about evolution. Apparently their experts have some level of academic and professional achievement above and beyond other scientists.
In drawing a box around the experts at the institute, the Freethinkers expose the box in which they themselves reside. If the overwhelming majority of experts proclaim Darwinian macro-evolution, why is there a need for the Freethinkers to snipe pedestrians and evangelize them into the common cause?
They invited me to debate at their weekly meeting. When I was younger, I liked the rush from intellectual Tae Kwon Do, but recently I have wearied of stumbling across better-armed opponents and their unexpected arguments. When someone with more information or better credentials presents something I have no rote answer for, I stammer and worsen my position.
Now I direct people to the sources of my convictions. Let them discover, as I have, the same information. The most ethical — and tactical — thing I can do is step aside and let my betters speak. Denigrating an issue’s proponents without giving them a fair hearing indicates immaturity of unrefined thought. I recognize it in others only because I discovered it in myself.
— Cliff Hale is a film sophomore and a page designer for The Shorthorn.
Cliff Hale
Becky Robinson, the president of Freethinkers of UTA responded to Cliff Hale's article:
http://www.theshorthorn.com/new/archives/2007/spring/030207/o02.asp
More Freethinking Needed
UTA group shouldn’t be dismissed as uninformed or close-minded
Cliff Hale recently wrote an opinion column reprimanding the Freethinkers of UTA for exposing “the box in which they themselves reside.” That’s true. We reside in a box that requires scientifically backed evidence for claims related to science.
Hale then went on to insist that the Institute for Creation Research has the best-available contra-evolution science.
Creationism is not science. The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “science” as “the investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.”
By including “natural phenomena,” this explanation rules out any supernatural claims. Supernatural claims, including creationism and intelligent design, do not belong in science. This has been backed by the leading scientists and the judicial system.
Hale asked why there was a need for a group such as the Freethinkers of UTA if the overwhelming majority of experts support Darwinian evolution. According to http://www.religioustolerance.org, 99.85 percent of America’s earth and life scientists support evolution. The National Academy of Sciences states “the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming” and that “creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.”
Do I hold 99.85 percent of the leading experts in the field’s word over an unscientific claim? Certainly. Most historians concede that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but there are historians who deny the Holocaust ever happened. Should we then teach in our history classes that both the Holocaust did and did not happen? Absolutely not.
The majority of experts support Darwinian evolution. It’s the American public that is sadly misinformed. According to http://www.livescience.com, comparing people’s views in 34 countries, only Turkey scored lower than the U.S. when it comes to public belief in evolution.
Hale claimed “denigrating an issue’s proponents without giving them a fair hearing indicates immaturity of unrefined thought.”
Just because I have not visited one of the many creation-science Web sites does not mean I am immature or have unrefined thought. But I will dismiss a supernatural claim that has no scientific backing. I don’t think that makes me closed-minded. It just means that I am not gullible.
— Becky Usher Robinson is a psychology major and the president of Freethinkers of UTA.
Becky Usher Robinson
Becky Robinson's Rebuttal to Cliff Hale
As previously mentioned, Becky Robinson wrote a response to an article written by Cliff Hale in the Shorthorn. She had to cut back her response considerably, due to space restrictions. Here is her original response submitted to the Shorthorn before editing:
Re: “Liberate your ‘Free’ thinking”
A response to Cliff Hale’s 2/16/07 opinion article
Cliff Hale recently wrote an opinion article in which he reprimands the Freethinkers of UTA for “exposing the box in which they themselves reside”. That is true. We reside in a box that requires scientifically-backed evidence for claims related to science. Hale then went on to insist that the Institute for Creation Research has the best available contra-evolution “science”. Some claims from the ICR are:
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator.
The argument boils down to the Creation/Evolution “controversy”. First of all, Creationism is not science. Period. According to The American Heritage Science Dictionary, science is defined as: “the investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.” By including “natural phenomena” in its definition, it rules out any supernatural claim. Supernatural claims, including Creationism and Intelligent Design, do not belong in science. In Kitzmiller v.
Hale claimed that “apparently their experts (those who support evolution) have some level of academic and professional achievement above and beyond other scientists.” According to www.religioustolerance.org, 99.85% of
Cliff Hale asked: “If the overwhelming majority of experts proclaim Darwinian macro-evolution, why is there a need for the Freethinkers to snipe pedestrians and evangelize them into the common cause?” First of all, celebrating Darwin Day (which is celebrated world-wide) and reading aloud scientific facts is hardly evangelizing. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of experts do support Darwinian evolution; it is the American public that is sadly misinformed. According to www.livescience.com, in a comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries, only
Mr. Hale claimed that “denigrating an issue’s proponents without giving them a fair hearing indicates immaturity of unrefined thought.” I certainly wanted to speak at further length on the subject, but he had to leave for class. I invited him to attend one of our meetings which have open discussions (not debates), but apparently he in not comfortable with that. Just because I have not heard of one (of the many) “creation science” website does not mean that I am immature or have unrefined thought. But I will dismiss a supernatural claim that has no scientific backing. Does that make me closed-minded? I think it makes me informed.
-Becky (Usher) Robinson is the President of Freethinkers of UTA
SSA Interview
1/30/07
Alison Bates, a Secular Student Alliance Campus Organizer, interviewed Becky Robinson, the President of Freethinkers of UTA, about the organization.
Here is the link:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/559
Superstition Bash - Location Change
Due to a scheduling screw-up, the Bluebonnet will not be available on Friday night. Have no fear, we are just moving the Superstition Bash outside. We will now be on the U.C. Mall, right outside of the University Center.
Everything else will go as planned.
I wonder if almost having to cancel your 1st event is a bad omen???
Making Our Presence Known
As mentioned at the meeting, Dr. Badon was going to give extra credit to the students of her Nursing Microbiology course for attending her bible study. I e-mailed Dr. Campbell, the chair of the Biology Department:
Dr. Campbell:
I am the president of the student organization Freethinkers of UTA. At our latest meeting, it was brought to my attention that in Dr. Michelle Badon’s Nursing Microbiology course, she is offering extra credit to attend the bible study that she heads. During the exam today, the projection screen showed:
Extra Credit
4th Mondays
YLACD, Inc.
Bible Study
One of our members is enrolled in this course and was outraged, as am I. I do not comprehend how a bible study is relevant to a Microbiology course. I certainly cannot grasp how giving extra credit to attend the professor’s church can be condoned by a Biology Department in a public university.
I wanted to first know if you were aware of the situation. Now that I know that you are, I wanted to know what actions will be taken to rectify Dr. Badon’s unethical behavior and gross misuse of authority.
Thank you,
Rebecca L. Usher
President of Freethinkers of UTA
Dr. Campbell was quick to respond:
Dear Ms. Usher:
I was unaware of this situation and I absolutely agree with you that this is totally inappropriate. I can assure you that will speak today with Dr. Badon and that it will be brought to a stop and no extra credit will be given. If I were in the student's position, I would be similarly upset. I appreciate you making me cognizant of this untenable situation and urge to let me know if you find there is not an immediate resolution of of any other problems that arise.
Best wishes—Jon Campbell
We are now officially activists!
Superstition Bash
We have decided on our first event:
Freethinkers of UTA will be sponsoring a Superstition Bash on Friday, October 13th.
Start Brainstorming!!
We Made the Shorthorn!
http://www.theshorthorn.com/new/archives/2006/fall/091306/n06.asp
Affiliates
We have been recognized as an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance:
http://www.secularstudents.org/affiliates
We will be recognized by the Center for Inquiry - On Campus soon.
We Have Sponsors!!
Dr. Daniel Levine - Psychology Professor http://www.uta.edu/psychology/faculty/levine/
and
Dr. Tim Henry - Biology Professor http://www.uta.edu/biology/henry/index.html
have agreed to be our faculty sponsors/advisors.
