In March of 1983, Dr. Patterson authored an article for (appropriately enough) the
American Atheist, in which he excoriated all of his fellow engineers who dared to be politically incorrect and believe in the concept of “design in nature resulting from an intelligent Creator.” Dr. Patterson labeled
any engineer who believed in creation as “incompetent,” and charged the professional societies who accepted their credentials as being “irresponsible.”
But, as brutal as that blistering bluster was, it represented little more than Patterson’s “warning shot across the bow.” Just a few months later, in the fall of 1983, Dr. Patterson went farther—much, much farther—in his personal vendetta against creationists. At the time, he was serving as one of the members of the [SIZE=-1]ISU[/SIZE] committee on instruction in the sciences and humanities. He presented a proposal to the committee that stunned not only the committee members, but also the university’s administration, faculty, and student body as well.
Dr. Patterson suggested—in all seriousness!—that any student who was enrolled in a science-related course, and who, at the conclusion of the course, continued to maintain a personal belief in creation,
should receive a failing grade. He also suggested that a professor—upon learning that a student had successfully completed his or her course, yet still retained a belief in creation—should be allowed to
retroactively change the grade from a passing mark to a failing one. And, said Patterson, if the university discovered that it inadvertently had conferred a degree upon a student who, upon having graduated, nevertheless believed in creation,
the degree should be rescinded!
Patterson’s proposal was reprinted in its entirety in the November/December 1984 issue of
Liberty magazine (see Zuidema, 1984, pp. 16-18), and elsewhere. Here, in Patterson’s own words, is a portion of that proposal.
I suggest that every professor should reserve the right to fail any student in his class no matter what the grade record indicates, whenever basic misunderstandings of a certain magnitude are discovered. Moreover, I would propose retracting grades and possibly even degrees if such gross misunderstandings are publicly espoused after passing the course, or after being graduated.... In geology and biology, denying the facts of evolution or an earth age in the order of billions of years, would, in my view, be grounds for drastic action. ...Resorting to arguments based on religious commitments, personal inspirations, revelations, and such would not be acceptable defenses; however, logically coherent arguments based on valid evidence could be. Decisions as to what is logically coherent or what is valid evidence would have to be made by appropriate faculty experts or panels who might also be called to task if their rationale(s) reflect academic irresponsibility or scholarly incompetence (Zuidema, p. 18, emp. added).
