2008 Woodie Awards
Freedom of Speech vs. License
Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinion
It is noted that Aeschylus, in the 5th century B.C., wrote that truth is the first victim of war. As the conflict between science and religion once again heats up, truth is again in danger of being the victim. An academic campus is logically the appropriate setting for the science-religion debate, but it ought not to become a battlefield, lest truth be sacrificed by emotion and freedom become license.
It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood.
It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design" this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID).
Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments."
This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.
It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood.
It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design" this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator, the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID).
Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil debate about the scientific merits of their arguments."
This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 9
Desertphile
posted 4/11/07 @ 3:24 PM CST
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 @ 7:01 PM CST
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 4/11/07 @ 11:21 PM CST
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 4/11/07 @ 11:34 PM CST
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 @ 3:45 AM CST
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 @ 1:05 AM CST
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