Daily Campus

Freedom of Speech vs. License

Abstract:
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....

Displaying 1 - 9 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.

The chief proponants of "intelligent design," the Discovery Institute, have admitted they are a Fundamentalist Christian organization with the goal of inflicting their occult beliefs into every venue of American society: art, literature, science, church, and education--- just read their "wedge document."

Michael Behe, a loud-mouth proponant of "intelligent design" Creationism, testified under oath that if "intelligent design" is science then so is astrology. He also testified under oath that "intelligent design" Creationism is not science, has no theory, nothing to teach, and has no research behind it. Discovery Institute, after ten years promoting the scam, has admitted their movement to inflict "intelligent design" Creationism into the public schools is "premature."

It is not censorship to reject false teachings and false hypothesies from schools. Anyone who wants to may go to church and hear about "intelligent design:" nobody is stopping them from doing so.

Bottom line: occultism and superstition do not belong on the SMU campuses nor any other campus--- these are institutes of learning, not cults to inculcate nonsense and falsehoods.

Post a reply to this comment

Gary

posted 4/13/07 @ 2:41 PM CST

Originally posted by
Desertphile
This opinion is very well-said and 100% correct: "intelligent design" is Creationism and belongs in churches, not on campus. ....bla bla bla...same old bull shit...frog shit...diatribe...

"Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?
Answer: A scientist.
Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?
Answer: A religious nut."

Go figure, Darwinists suffer from a clear inability to reason rightly.

Desertphile's post along with so many others here is clear evidence of deep inbred, brainwashing into stupidity.
Man what tripe is spewed in the name of atheist materialism by Darwinist dupes who fail to see beyond their noses into the bankruptcy of Darwinism.

Again:
"A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis." - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm
compared with:
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
----------
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
- Robert Wilensky

Post a reply to this comment

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. Any time that they actually come up with a testable hypothesis, let alone a true alternate theory or a cure or something equally useful to humanity, lay members of the public like me and I'm sure many scientists would be interested in what they have to say. Until then, their increasingly hysterical tone masks an obvious lack of content and, I fear, a Christian theocratic agenda.

Post a reply to this comment

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. Of course Newton, AE Wilder Smith and a few 1000 others of histories greatest scientists would strongly disagree.

Wetherington quotes part of the infamous Wedge document to support his prejudice - like as if all IDists are Wedge doc followers! A very feeble piece of reasoning that we're all tired of seeing.

What is this professor's real motive? Protecting truth, which he claims changes? Darwinism is founded in metaphysical assumptions that clearly qualify as religious. So where are Wetherington's complaints about that?

This is just another lame attempt to hide the truth and scramble the cards so that unsuspecting and gullible people will quickly assign ID theory to the non-science category upon the good professor's word - the same old tactic we've seen for many years.

Wetherington seems to be ignorant of the fact that it was not the DI that invented the term or the concept of ID but agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle in 1982.
"... The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." (27-28) Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London

Materialist science and it's creation myth Darwinism, is not founded upon a candid search for fact but upon a curious psychological need to eliminate any explanation that implies the metaphysical existence of a designing intelligence.

The existence of real design in nature is tangible to all human minds - otherwise why did Dawkins have to invent *designoids* to explain away those deep & intuitive impressions?

We detect design intuitively in every day life without ever thinking about it. Materialists wish us to stifle that intuition by calling it an illusion or delusion. However we could not survive without it.

So Wetherington's comments, while seeming to be moved by a wish for protecting truth are actually an effort to blind us to the truth about Darwinism and indeed about the amazing and hyper-ingenious design of life. Or, as one molecular biologist put, "genius beyond genius".

Post a reply to this comment

GalapagosPete

posted 4/17/07 @ 12:47 AM CST

Originally posted by
Gary
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. Of course Newton, AE Wilder Smith and a few 1000 others of histories greatest scientists would strongly disagree.

Wetherington quotes part of the infamous Wedge document to support his prejudice - like as if all IDists are Wedge doc followers! A very feeble piece of reasoning that we're all tired of seeing.

What is this professor's real motive? Protecting truth, which he claims changes? Darwinism is founded in metaphysical assumptions that clearly qualify as religious. So where are Wetherington's complaints about that?

This is just another lame attempt to hide the truth and scramble the cards so that unsuspecting and gullible people will quickly assign ID theory to the non-science category upon the good professor's word - the same old tactic we've seen for many years.

Wetherington seems to be ignorant of the fact that it was not the DI that invented the term or the concept of ID but agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle in 1982.
"... The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." (27-28) Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London

Materialist science and it's creation myth Darwinism, is not founded upon a candid search for fact but upon a curious psychological need to eliminate any explanation that implies the metaphysical existence of a designing intelligence.

The existence of real design in nature is tangible to all human minds - otherwise why did Dawkins have to invent *designoids* to explain away those deep & intuitive impressions?

We detect design intuitively in every day life without ever thinking about it. Materialists wish us to stifle that intuition by calling it an illusion or delusion. However we could not survive without it.

So Wetherington's comments, while seeming to be moved by a wish for protecting truth are actually an effort to blind us to the truth about Darwinism and indeed about the amazing and hyper-ingenious design of life. Or, as one molecular biologist put, "genius beyond genius".

Well, we wouldn't want to imply anything, so: ID is not science. ID is not science. ID IS NOT SCIENCE. And scientists who support ID may be swell in their field, but their opinion about evolution is worthless. And if they're biologists and believe in ID then they're fringe whackjobs. That direct enough for you?

"Newton, AE Wilder Smith and a few 1000 others of histories [sic] greatest scientists" lived at a time when the existence of God was taken for granted by everyone. If they lived today, most of them would accept that God is unnecessary to science. And even if some of them didn't believe in your god, they certainly weren't about to admit it.

But I forget: ID isn't about God. Could be space aliens. Right. As for the Wedge document, all DI-ers accept it, whether all ID-ers do, and we're talking about DI-ers here.

While you're at it, explain what the "metaphysical assumptions" behind evolutionary biology are, and specifically how it qualifies as a religion.

And there's no such thing as ID theory. It's not even an hypothesis. It's loony.

Fred Hoyle was not the first. He was preceded by Paley, Descartes, and Cicero. At least. They all were wrong. And Hoyle was apparently "calculating the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Hoyle also thought that insects may have come from outer space and be as intelligent as humans but were hiding this from us. So if you want Hoyle, you can have him. Really.

Materialistic science? I thought evolution was metaphysical. Can't you at least stay consistent in the same letter? Make up your mind! Is evolutionary theory metaphysical (and if so, how so?) or is it materialistic? And if it is materialistic, how is *that* bad?

There is no design in nature...none. If there were, it would work better than it does, assuming a competent designer. If there was a designer, rather than "genius beyond genius," he's a low-grade moron.

Post a reply to this comment

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. "The conference will promote this and other false statements designed to discredit science and scientists." Discredit science? Which brand? Materialist. Indeed.

Of course Newton, AE Wilder Smith and a few 1000 others among histories greatest scientists would strongly disagree.

Wetherington quotes part of the infamous Wedge document to support his prejudice - like as if all IDists are Wedge doc followers! A very feeble piece of reasoning that we're all tired of seeing.

What is this professor's real motive? Protecting truth, which he claims changes? Darwinism is founded in metaphysical assumptions that clearly qualify as religious. So where are Wetherington's complaints about that?

This is just another lame attempt to hide the truth and scramble the cards so that unsuspecting or gullible people will quickly assign ID theory to the non-science category upon the good professor's word - the same old lame tactic we've seen for many years.

Wetherington seems to be ignorant of the fact that it was not the DI that invented the term ID but agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle in 1982. "... The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true." (27-28) Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London

Of course ID as a concept is as old as man and can be found in scientific literature throughout history.

Materialist science and it's creation myth Darwinism, is not founded upon a candid search for fact but upon a curious psychological need to eliminate any explanation that implies the metaphysical existence of a designing intelligence.

The existence of real design in nature is tangible to all human minds - otherwise why did Dawkins have to invent *designoids* to explain away those deep & intuitive impressions?

We detect design intuitively in every day life without ever thinking about it. Materialists wish us to stifle that intuition by calling it an illusion or delusion. However we could not survive without it.

Perhaps the words of fellow anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz would help put things in persepective: "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

There you have it. So Darwinism does not even count as a theory according to this statement!
"A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis." - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm

So Wetherington's comments, while seeming to be moved by a wish for protecting truth are actually an effort to blind us to the truth about Darwinism and indeed about the amazing and hyper-ingenious design of life. Or, as one molecular biologist put, "genius beyond genius".

Post a reply to this comment

GalapagosPete

posted 4/17/07 @ 12:59 AM CST

Originally posted by
Gary
...Perhaps the words of fellow anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz would help put things in persepective: "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

There you have it. So Darwinism does not even count as a theory according to this statement!
"A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis." - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm...

Schwartz supports evolution. He just believes in sudden change rather than gradualism. He seems to be trying to strengthen his position here by knocking down "underlying assumptions." He is literally correct: we cannot show what *did* happen, only what might have happened. There *is* only one true history, and likely we will never know it, only what might have happened. Nothing he says gives any support to the imaginary-friend-in-the-sky hypothesis.

Your choice of definition and assertion about whether evolution is a valid theory based on that definition merely displays your ignorance. That is an extremely bare-bones, frankly inadequate definition of a scientific theory. For a good discussion, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Post a reply to this comment

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.

The protests and the attempt at censorship by members of the faculties are such a disgrace to the good name of the university. The decision makers have done the right thing to allow for freedom of speech. Free-minded people wants to hear both sides of the "war".

Post a reply to this comment