Daily Campus

Letter to the Editor

Abstract:
Dear Editor,

I was amused to read that some of the science department faculty at SMU had protested the proposed Intelligent Design Conference.

Isn't it so typical to see academics who live in mortal fear of viewpoints other than their own? I was particularly amused to read the comments of Dr....

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

George Henson

posted 3/27/07 @ 10:13 AM CST

I was amused, but not surprised, to read that Mr. Bradshaw teaches at Abilene Christian University. A quick Google search shows he teaches Communications, not Biology. Not surprising. I'd be interested to know what his school's science departments' official position is on intelligent design. The following statement on evolution is posted on the Biology department website of (conservative Baptist) Baylor University:

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

Post a reply to this comment

Mr. L. Galbraith

posted 3/28/07 @ 3:45 PM CST

I was amused, but not surprised to read the comments by George Benson criticizing Dr. Bradshaw. Benson completely ignores Bradshaw's point that some profs at SMU are attempting to stifle free and open discussion. Instead, he invokes a red herring by attacking Bradshaw's credentials. The central issue is not whether Intelligent Design is true and if Bradshaw is qualified to judge but whether students have a right to hear dissenting opinions.

Originally posted by
George Henson
I was amused, but not surprised, to read that Mr. Bradshaw teaches at Abilene Christian University. A quick Google search shows he teaches Communications, not Biology. Not surprising. I'd be interested to know what his school's science departments' official position is on intelligent design. The following statement on evolution is posted on the Biology department website of (conservative Baptist) Baylor University:

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

Post a reply to this comment

GalapagosPete

posted 4/16/07 @ 9:44 PM CST

Originally posted by
George Henson
I was amused, but not surprised, to read that Mr. Bradshaw teaches at Abilene Christian University. A quick Google search shows he teaches Communications, not Biology...

In fairness to Mr. Bradshaw, his comment was not on the validity of IDC but his disagreement with "Dr. Ubelaker, former chair of chemistry, calling the conference "propaganda."" Since Mr. Bradshaw teaches Communications, one would expect his opinion on what is propaganda would be worthwhile. Alas, one would be in error.

Of *course* this whole "conference" is propaganda. The intent is to spread lies about evolutionary theory while promoting a fallacious alternative, so-called "Intelligent Design." If this is not propaganda, what is?

Post a reply to this comment

Robert W. Padgett

posted 4/27/07 @ 4:24 PM CST

Isn't it hypocritical that the SMU Biology Department is unable to identify a single falsifiable claim regarding macroevolution? They speak ad nauseum about microevolutionary experiments as though proving that a weight lifter can lift 500 pounds somehow proves the same person could lift mount Everest...if granted eons of time, large quantities of HGH and massive infusions of the magical ether they call "chance." If you are unable to distinguish between microevolutionary change and macroevolution claims, then you are woefully ignorant of the real debate, one that evolutionary propagandists seek so desperately to silence. They are afraid that the sham science they claim is akin to Newtonian physics will be unmasked for what it truly is--the greatest cosmogenic myth of the 20th century--Darwinian evolution.

Post a reply to this comment

Scott Rewak

posted 3/27/07 @ 3:15 PM CST

Amusing? Hardly. Like it or not, intelligent design holds no scientific merit. Why would the science department want to legitimize non-science in a scientific setting? It does not belong in science class. There are other forums for it.

Having this debate would be akin to "debating" whether the sun revolves around the earth in an astronomy class. It is not a matter of "belief," it is a matter or scientific merit. There is no basis to legitimize ID as "science." It is a religious belief. It has its place, but that is not in a science environment.

Post a reply to this comment

Randy

posted 4/19/07 @ 4:18 PM CST

Originally posted by
Scott Rewak
Amusing? Hardly. Like it or not, intelligent design holds no scientific merit. Why would the science department want to legitimize non-science in a scientific setting? It does not belong in science class. There are other forums for it.

Having this debate would be akin to "debating" whether the sun revolves around the earth in an astronomy class. It is not a matter of "belief," it is a matter or scientific merit. There is no basis to legitimize ID as "science." It is a religious belief. It has its place, but that is not in a science environment.

I fail to see that the conference was at all tied to the science departments at SMU. DI and other interested parties were simply using the facilities of SMU. Students were not being obligeted to attend the conference in order to obtain credit in any science. Therefore, it seems to me that the protests were unfounded. Free speech should exist on campus more than anywhere. The free exchange of ideas should not be hindered - especially by a university.

You state well that there are other forums for DI than in the science class. Granted - and SMU should provide that forum, and did. So why the hoopla? Because some people want to suppress the free exchange of ideas.

Randy

Post a reply to this comment

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho

posted 3/29/07 @ 11:37 AM CST

I was amused, but not surprised to found out that Charles Darwin had only a Master of Arts in Theology, and this didn't prevent him from writing Origin of Species.

Shame on those who protect Darwin against any scientific critique and the free debate of ideas in the campi around the world.

A former Darwinist from Brazil

Post a reply to this comment

GalapagosPete

posted 4/16/07 @ 9:33 PM CST

Originally posted by
Enezio E. de Almeida Filho
I was amused, but not surprised to found out that Charles Darwin had only a Master of Arts in Theology, and this didn't prevent him from writing Origin of Species.

Shame on those who protect Darwin against any scientific critique and the free debate of ideas in the campi around the world.

A former Darwinist from Brazil

Degrees in a particular field were not nearly as important 170 years ago; what was important was the work you did and the conclusions you made. Darwin did the work, and in the 150+ years since The Origin of Species was published, all the evidence has supported his conclusions.

In the modern world there is simply too much to know about most subjects for an amateur to make a significant contribution, especially amateurs who do not understand that the subject is more complicated that he/she thinks.

Post a reply to this comment