2008 Woodie Awards
Open debate in jeopardy
Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, Contributing Writers
Issue date: 4/4/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Academic freedom determines the quality of education liberal arts universities, but a move toward reactionary censorship threatens this. The disturbing trend has now come to SMU, as attempts to squelch dissent from majority viewpoints have come from those most responsible for protecting our academic freedom, our professors. An upcoming conference about intelligent design has raised the ire of some of the science faculty on campus. Their demands to cancel the conference are a different reaction than in the past.
Two years ago, The Daily Campus ran an opinion piece by biology professor John Wise. Wise was writing in response to Michael Behe, Lehigh University professor and proponent of the theory of intelligent design. At the time, Wise chose to engage in what appeared to be a healthy dialogue on Behe's arguments about irreducibly complex molecular machines.
While Wise disagreed with Behe's arguments, he acknowledged the pedagogical benefit of addressing the points raised by this alternative explanation. He wrote, "What makes science so useful and progress so quickly is the tradition of critically analyzing these alternatives from individuals." Wise was confident enough in his arguments to allow room for discussion of the alternative theory of intelligent design.
Now, Michael Behe is scheduled to present his arguments for intelligent design at a conference held on campus, along with fellow intelligent design proponents Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards. Three of the major science departments called for the university to cancel the upcoming Darwin vs. Design conference and renege on its contract with Discovery Institute. What led to this change in strategy, this shift away from taking opportunities to engage in civil discourse to keeping ideas that challenge your own off campus? If you have confidence in your arguments, why silence your opponents? Are some faculty threatened by ID?
If faculty at SMU feel this certain of the superiority of their position, they should take the opportunity to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the other side rather than stifling intellectual discourse and discouraging students from engaging with scientific evidence. Students have the right to weigh the evidence themselves. Those who attend the Darwin vs. Design conference can judge if ID has science on its side.
Academic freedom is vital in higher education. It allows reigning viewpoints to be challenged and discussed, which encourages students to think independently about both sides. When those who are responsible for education suppress the discussion of ideas, they betray their commitment to education and science itself.
Sarah Beth Levy is a law student at SMU. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
Two years ago, The Daily Campus ran an opinion piece by biology professor John Wise. Wise was writing in response to Michael Behe, Lehigh University professor and proponent of the theory of intelligent design. At the time, Wise chose to engage in what appeared to be a healthy dialogue on Behe's arguments about irreducibly complex molecular machines.
While Wise disagreed with Behe's arguments, he acknowledged the pedagogical benefit of addressing the points raised by this alternative explanation. He wrote, "What makes science so useful and progress so quickly is the tradition of critically analyzing these alternatives from individuals." Wise was confident enough in his arguments to allow room for discussion of the alternative theory of intelligent design.
Now, Michael Behe is scheduled to present his arguments for intelligent design at a conference held on campus, along with fellow intelligent design proponents Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards. Three of the major science departments called for the university to cancel the upcoming Darwin vs. Design conference and renege on its contract with Discovery Institute. What led to this change in strategy, this shift away from taking opportunities to engage in civil discourse to keeping ideas that challenge your own off campus? If you have confidence in your arguments, why silence your opponents? Are some faculty threatened by ID?
If faculty at SMU feel this certain of the superiority of their position, they should take the opportunity to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the other side rather than stifling intellectual discourse and discouraging students from engaging with scientific evidence. Students have the right to weigh the evidence themselves. Those who attend the Darwin vs. Design conference can judge if ID has science on its side.
Academic freedom is vital in higher education. It allows reigning viewpoints to be challenged and discussed, which encourages students to think independently about both sides. When those who are responsible for education suppress the discussion of ideas, they betray their commitment to education and science itself.
Sarah Beth Levy is a law student at SMU. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 17
sci4all
posted 4/04/07 @ 6:01 AM CST
Why doesn't Anika Smith's description include her current affiliation with the Discovery Institute? That's more relevant to this piece than her alma mater. (Continued…)
Ken
posted 4/04/07 @ 6:53 AM CST
While it behooves all scientists everywhere to keep an open but critical mind, this should not imply that every scientist should also entertain the validity of the pseudo-scientists and hecklers of the world. (Continued…)
Richard Brown
posted 4/04/07 @ 8:15 AM CST
If ID were an actual scientific theory rather than Christian ministry attempting to disguise itself as such I might agree with you. This is not an issue of academic freedom or tolerance. (Continued…)
Michael Goodrich
posted 4/04/07 @ 9:30 AM CST
Bravo and well said. Let this kind of ideologically driven censorship be exposed and repudiated in the names of academic freedom and excellence.
-Michael S. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 4/04/07 @ 9:48 AM CST
One problem, Intelligent Design is not science yet the ID movements advocate portray it as so. People defending ID would be wise to spend some time learning about it. (Continued…)
Robert Crowther
posted 4/04/07 @ 10:21 AM CST
Late last week, Discovery Institute sent a letter to the chairs of the three departments at SMU which were calling for the Darwin vs. Design conference to be removed from campus, inviting them to a debate about intelligent design. (Continued…)
Scott Beach
posted 4/04/07 @ 1:00 PM CST
The proponents of intelligent design describe and describe and describe ID without ever stating a definition of ID. I got tired of their obfuscation so I posted a definition of ID. (Continued…)
Mark Montie
posted 4/04/07 @ 11:58 PM CST
Sir Anthony Flew, one of the most influential atheists of the 20th Century recently "changed his mind." Why would he ever do such a thing? In a recent interview titled, "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism" he states the following:
"I think that the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. (Continued…)
Desertphile
posted 4/05/07 @ 12:42 PM CST
This opinion piece is not just arrogant and ignorant, but it is also bloody insulting. "Intelligent design" is not an alternative to anything: it is occultism (that is, Creationism) pretending to be "science. (Continued…)
Scott
posted 4/05/07 @ 12:47 PM CST
The Discovery Institute's misleading refrain about this being an issue of academic freedom or open discussion is becoming as tiresome as it is repetitive. (Continued…)
Post a Comment