Spring Break
Freedom of Speech vs. License
Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinion
We continue to encourage casting light on these issues and reducing the heat of passion. The coming ID conference is more likely to generate heat. We should not misunderstand the avowed intent of these conferences (an identical one was held this March in Knoxville). They are carefully planned to further the Institute's goal to "encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's [sic] that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture." This evangelical motive is carefully disguised in their promotional material.
It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and forthrightness in any public program on a university campus. The program purports, by its title, to be a scientific examination of "Darwin v. Design." Truth has already become victim, alas. The university erred in scheduling this.
About the writer:
Ronald K. Wetherington is a professor of anthropology at SMU. He can be reached at rwetheri@smu.edu.
It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and forthrightness in any public program on a university campus. The program purports, by its title, to be a scientific examination of "Darwin v. Design." Truth has already become victim, alas. The university erred in scheduling this.
About the writer:
Ronald K. Wetherington is a professor of anthropology at SMU. He can be reached at rwetheri@smu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 9
Desertphile
posted 4/11/07 @ 4:24 PM EST
This opinion is very well-said and 100% correct: "intelligent design" is Creationism and belongs in churches, not on campus. Most students and staff at SMU presumably would be embarassed to have SMU host a "Stork vs Sex" conference, or an "Alchemy vs Chemistry" conference, yet a few SMU buzy-bodies apparently do not feel the same shame and humiliation and embarassement about hosting a conference promoting Creationism ("intelligent design")--- at which they certainly ought to feel such discomfiture. (Continued…)
Kristine
posted 4/11/07 @ 8:01 PM EST
I'm glad to see this measured and articulate response.
The Discovery Institute fellows seem to be widening their circle of "enemies." Their aggressive language is reaching a new pitch of hyperbole. (Continued…)
Gary
posted 4/12/07 @ 12:21 AM EST
Once again, ad infinitum ad nauseum, we have another implied claim that ID is not science and IDists cannot be real scientists without some religious motive. (Continued…)
Gary
Gary
posted 4/12/07 @ 12:34 AM EST
Once again, ad infinitum ad nauseum, we have in this opinion piece another implied claim that ID is not science and IDists cannot be real scientists without some religious motive. (Continued…)
Matthew Tan
posted 4/12/07 @ 4:45 AM EST
So what if it is the use of scientific data to support a religious view? Scientists have been doing it all the time: just that they have been using scientific data to support an anti-religious or materialistic - which by itself is another brand of religion - view. (Continued…)
Daniel S.
posted 4/14/07 @ 2:05 AM EST
Read this four paragraph article...
We Already Had a Debate--Back in 1992!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2242
Post a Comment