Lehigh doing damage control

Sometimes it’s fun to watch university public relations. Having worked in one such department, I understand the constraints of needing to A) be politically correct, B) seem open to new ideas and dissenting views, and C) maintain your reputation.

It’s often a juggling act. You don’t want to offend anyone or challenge someone’s right to express a different view, but sometimes that “different view” can hurt your attaining goal C.

So here we have Lehigh University. It was already distancing itself from biology professor Michael Behe, who is testifying in the “Scopes II” trial that intelligent design is actually a scientific theory.

Earlier this week, a note appeared on the Department of Biological Sciences’ Web site entitled “Department’s Position on Evolution and ‘Intelligent Design’.” It read in part:

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Obviously, Lehigh wants to save the reputation of its biology department; the last thing bio grads need is to have their education questioned because “Lehigh” becomes associated with “creationism.” It doesn’t want to seem closed-minded, but it doesn’t want its science department to be associated with a non-scientific idea.

So it opted for the “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” approach seen in that note.

Unfortunately, Behe is making it tougher. Today comes this chuckler from New Scientist:

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

Later in the story:

[Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric] Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

You have to wonder what’s going on at Lehigh. “We can’t censor him — we’re a university!” “Yes, but he’s destroying our reputation!”

Juggling’s tough.