That nice but batty lady, Denyse O’Leary, is teaching a course in intelligent design. At the University of Toronto. Woe, the devaluation of a great research university…!
Oh, but wait. It’s actually taught at St Michael’s College, a Catholic institution within the University of Toronto. And you have to look at the course entry to believe it. It’s a non-credit course under the category of “Scripture, Spirituality & Pastoral Care”, and the listing is buried in the middle of a lot of theology, mysticism, New Age nonsense, and gibbering madness.
it fits in perfectly.
As an alumnus, my first instinct was to cry loud and cry long about this nonsense. Then it occurred to me that I’d have to read offended claims of censorship from the IDists if public outcry put paid to this travesty. Besides, it could be a lot of fun to audit this “course” and maybe ask a few basic questions…. I’ll be sure to take copious notes detailing everything I learn about design inference and the ID research program.
Bwahahahaha.
This here is a rare instance where I have no problem whatsoever of intelligent design being taught in a classroom :D
Quote: “Oh, but wait. It’s actually taught at St Michael’s College, a Catholic institution within the University of Toronto. And you have to look at the course entry to believe it. It’s a non-credit course under the category of “Scripture, Spirituality & Pastoral Care”, and the listing is buried in the middle of a lot of theology, mysticism, New Age nonsense, and gibbering madness.” – PZed
Ah, yes… a perfect example of the politeness for which we Canadians are renowned: just a tiny bit backhanded, eh? ;-D
From Grandma Spice’s course description:
The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a confl ict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe. Reputable scientists can be found on both sides. Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises.
Jeez, can’t she get anything right? In “Abusing Philosophy of Science for Dummies” it’s very clear that when you’re butchering Kuhn, you’ve got to blither copiously about “paradigm shifts.” It’s when you’re doing violence to the work of Sir Karl Popper that you’re supposed to misapply the concept of “falsification.”
Sheesh.
I read that as meaning that Thomas Kuhn might say “they do not agree.” And I bet he did–more than once.
There’s a final I want to take!
Q. Please explain……
A. God did it.
Grrr. Despite the fact that it’s a non-credit “course,” I’m still ashamed of my institution for offering such nonsense. But this is not the first time, I’m afraid. When I was an undergrad at U of T (late 90s), I took a course entitled “Faith and Science.” That one was a credit course, and it very popular too. It was taught by a very passionate Rabbi, who was fond of making lists along the lines of “X reasons why evolution is wrong.” I sat in the front row and I fought with him every single class. He never lost his patience and was always very gentle — I’ll grant him that — but, oh, my god, the nonsense that man could spew! I remember that I wrote my research paper on pseudo-scientific quasi-spiritual crap written by scientists (i.e. tao of physics), and of course I excoriated these awful books. For some strange reason I got an A+. I mean, technically, he should have failed me.
Aqua; that Rabbi sounds like an intellectually honest man, despite the creato-babble. Do you think it possible that his teaching method was a ruse to get you and other students to do exactly what you did; think and write well about the subject? Seems highly unlikely (not to mention a bit unethical) to me, but you never know.
Meanwhile, the “first” stage of the development of vision may have been found, in a single extra copy of a single gene, which then interacted with other proteins differently:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071018-vision-origins.html
Dense O’Leary will do anything to sell her book(s).
How this upper-middle class Canadian obtained her persecution-complex delusions is beyond me. Doesn’t she realize that it’s materialistic to eat?
Hypocracy bugs the shit out of me, and that’s all this O’Leary is. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, and she banned me from her blog. For this – “If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.”
No wonder they’re losing the culture war they started. Anyway, my bitter 2c. :O
Posted on September 6, 2007.
Denyse O’Leary’s University Course on Intelligent Design
I have spies who are taking the course and I’ll report when it’s over.
PZ, you forgot to mention that this class is in the evenings and is just like one of thousands of Informal Classes that are taught every week on college and university campuses around the country.
Last time I looked at the University of Texas Informal Classes booklets that I get through the mail, nearly half of the classes on offer were on subjects like “Therapeutic Touch”, “The Art of Feng Shui”, or other such pseudoscientific nonsense or psychobabble.
I could call up the local Informal Class organizers tomorrow with any number of whacked out ideas for a course and they would set it up, no questions asked, if they thought there was going to be enough interest in it. Talk about O’Leary taking the path of least resistance in getting an ID class into a place of higher education!
What’s really funny is that O’Leary is trying to line up guest speakers for all the sessions. I sincerely doubt that any of the standard $130 course fee is going towards their travel expenses. Is Michael Behe really going to travel all the way to Toronto on his own dime to give a mid-week speech at a local informal class in front of a couple of dozen people?
Another fine example of those evil atheist evolutionist ‘scientists’ using their influence to silence dissent. If they’re so convinced their so-called ‘theory’ of evolution is correct, then why are they so afrai–
[Offscreen mumbling]
What? She’s not an evolutionist?
But she banned–
[Offscreen mumbling]
She supports ID? Then why….
Must have been some kind of technical problem, Jeffox. Everyone knows the religious just love to listen to others’ viewpoints. You’ll find countless examples of such in the Bible and in the history of Christian–
[Offscreen mumbling]
What?
O’Leary is the one who called me an “ill-tempered illiterate”. I can’t help but smile.
Newt has evolved! Read it and weep creationists!
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/green/entries/2007/10/17/newt_gingrich_paleontologist_e_1.html
You never know where you’ll find a friend.
@ Brownian and Blake Stacey:
As far as I’m concerned, she’s a bitch. I have never been banned from anywhere else, for anything. But, like I wrote, she’s got this unwarranted persecution complex that she uses to “project” on to anybody who doesn’t see things exactly her way.
I have the theory that (judging from her photo) she’s half porcupine. Whatever her real problem is, she should be locked up for it, IMHO.
And to think, Canada also gave us BTO and Rush.
Cool! Spies!
Did they actually pay the $130 to take the course, though?
—Reputable scientists can be found on both sides.—
Um,no. Because once you go to the “other side” in this so-called “debate,” you are neither reputable nor a scientist.
—Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsifi cation of their premises.—
It’s not that they do not “agree” on what would constitute a falsification of their premises. The IDiots have a position that cannot be falsified (meaning it’s a tautology). One cannot falsify ID lunacy without the proving of a negative–as we’ve seen when all the evidence in the world contradicting their position moves them not at all.
Has anyone ever challenged an IDiot to spell out what would constitute falsification of that position? I’d be interested to see the result, despite the clear possibility that my head would explode.
Before you all sign up for U of T, you may want to see what UBC has to offer.
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2006/01/13/PoleDancing/
I was looking through the continuing education booklet from the college where I used to teach, and there was a course on Angel Healing. So you, too, could call upon the healing powers of angels to heal all kinds of physical and spiritual ills after completing what I believe was a four-session course.
Apparently the course materials were being provided by the instructor…
It might be interesting to take a class somewhere about the controversy, about Popper, Kuhn, and what makes real science, and why ID isn’t it.
DL doesn’t seem to know her Poppers from her Kuhns. Not a good start.
Is Michael Behe really going to travel all the way to Toronto on his own dime to give a mid-week speech at a local informal class in front of a couple of dozen people?
Are there any hot young co-eds in that group?
Funny, I haven’t been banned. But then, they haven’t figured out that my creationist alter ego is not just a parody, but a very overt parody.
They’re pretty stupid.
Sign me up!
When I start to grow weary of Mrs. O’Leary
I think she takes pity on me.
As a sign of affection, she changes direction–
A brand-new performance to see!
I’ll get myself, pronto, right up to Toronto,
Enroll myself into her class
With God as my buddy, I’ll sit there and study
Whatever she pulls from her ass.
Her guest speaker, Behe (just hear the class tee-hee),
Will make irreducible claims
(If you point out one blunder, it all falls asunder–
Add drinking, and now you’ve got games!)
In the syllabus–wait, is there really debate?–
It says both sides bring science to bear;
But the insider rap says it’s “God of the gaps”
And frankly, I really don’t care.
See, I know in my heart, it’s not science, it’s art
And Denyse does interpretive dance.
And yes, she is lying, but, Lord, she is trying
Her best, by design or by chance.
But wait! Someone said it would not count for credit?
Does UT admit this is shit?
With no compensation, no change of location
For Cuttlefish–sorry, that’s it.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/10/denyse-oleary-is-teaching-intelligent.html
I hate the church, but I have to say: Catholic girls rock! Nothing like the inhibited when they finally snap. Yowsah!
A Molly for the fish! Or does he already have one?
shiftlessbum, I don’t think the Rabbi did not believe in what he was teaching, but he enjoyed the debate, it seems. He was a good man (I was probably really obnoxious arguing with him like that — and often after the class ended too), but he was so misguided, and who knows how many young minds he managed to influence. If I remember correctly, he had a PhD in environmental science (or something like that).
I too thought about being a spy in O’Leary’s class, but I wouldn’t pay the fee — it’s morally wrong to contribute to an issue I despise so much.
I prefer my gibbering madness to be of the cthonian variety, thank you very much.
O’Leary is such a stupid bint.
Some days its embarrassing to be a Canadian…
This is one of those days.
Well, in U of T’s defense, this is a not-for-credit Continuing Education course — as both Tacitus and DC have pointed out. The fact that it’s offered by St. Mike’s (a separate Catholic College) doesn’t mean that St. Mikes supports “Intelligent Design” — it means that whoever accepted her proposal for a course thought they’d fill the class.
And it’s in the Religion section, along with Creating Mandalas. I’m assuming that they’re more prone to offer religious courses in their extension division because their alumni are more likely to take them.
I agree that it’s revolting, but it’s a different flavor of revolting than it could have been. Someone should consider pitching St. Mike’s a non-credit course debunking Intelligent Design: you get paid about 2,000 to teach one night a week, I think.
Ah, U of T. Those were the days. I spent my third year of undergrad there studying physics, and I was actually technically part of St. Mike’s College (but only, I suspect, because it was the easiest place to dump the international students). Three of my fellow students stayed in-college, and I took the godless liberal route and stayed in Campus Co-OP, which was all kinds of awesome.
Funny think about St. Mike’s though, as I recall it was an all-male residence and you weren’t allowed women overnight. But you were allowed men overnight, which I always thought was an interesting rule!
ROTFL! Irreducible claims! My day is saved. :-)
ROTFL! Irreducible claims! My day is saved. :-)
Given how ID isn’t religious (wink wink), doesn’t have religious premises and the designer isn’t God (cough) I’m surprised a proponent would even want to teach about it as part of a series of “Religion, Scripture and Spirituality” courses.
Mind you, that point got me slapped at UncommonDescent shortly before they banned me, so perhaps I don’t understand it perfectly.
I went to U of T, and one thing that had depressed me while I was there was that there was a mandatory first year biology course which apparently taught evolution very thoroughly — this part is good — the bad part is that everyone I knew who took it used to complain that it “teaches evolution as though it were fact” and that it “doesn’t address the controversy”. That was the first time I ever came across the idea that there was a “controversy” about evolution. I remember being disgusted with a) the ignorance being displayed by the students and b) the apparent incompetence of the professor(s) in teaching that evolution was fact as far as science was concerned.
GAAAAH!!! You have said anything about the Designer! Heretic! Heretic!!! <panic>
Don’t you know the Designer is ineffable!?!
GAAAAH!!! You have said anything about the Designer! Heretic! Heretic!!! <panic>
Don’t you know the Designer is ineffable!?!
I get the impression that some of these universities and colleges use the crap stuff as a money maker. One of the CEGEPs in the Montreal area sends out a catalogue full of them every semester.