Daily Campus

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.

Besides, learning about science at a Darwin v Design revival is like taking NASCAR driving lessons from the Amish. If you're really interested in learning the science, at least seek out reputable sources.

Those sources don't include lawyers & PR firms masquerading as think tanks.

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. Intelligent Design will invariably fall into one of these categories. While any ardent researcher may be able to defend his or her position given the time to do so, not every professional scientist has the stage presence or unwavering presence of mind that is required to successfully present one's ideas accurately during a live debate.
If the Intelligent Design proponents are truly interested in knowing and discovering the truth, they should stick to academic discussions, and not the public circus style arguments which invariably ensue during such heated topics as evolution and human origin. Of course, given their position and their real goals, which include extreme influence over the public schooling system and the maintenance of public ignorance, sticking to the facts my not be the most Intelligent thing to do.

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. Such portrayals of the situation are a red herring specifically designed as a scam to fool the intellectually challenged or the mentally gullible. The fact that you fall for it shows us that we have a long way to go to stop such nonsense. ID has no place on a campus that strives for genuine academics and eshews charlatans and their pseudoscience. The professors are quite right to stand for the integrity of science in the face of such patently anti-intellectual attacks. Your research into the matter appears biased and far from complete. Feel free to avail yourself of my website at http://www.lrsd.ab.ca/staff/brownr/Contro/controversy.htm if you're genuine in your concern on the matter. I also welcome your e-mail response should you wish to do so.
Richard Brown
High school biology teacher

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. Goodrich, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA

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. Google "wedge strategy" and "teach the controversy" to learn more about the underhanded tactics used by these creationists.

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. They have not responded.

However, The Dallas Morning News did, and it agrees with us that open discussion belongs at a university. Last Saturday the DMN ran a brief editorial short on the SMU controversy: "But if there's any place where an idea like this can be examined and debated, you'd think that a university . . . would be it. But a group of SMU professors got the vapors and demanded that the university bar the Discovery Institute from campus. SMU's administration correctly told the prissy profs that the group had every right to be on campus."

I hope that people will come to the conference and hear what intelligent design advocates are arguing for and make up their own minds.

For more info go to darwinvsdesign.com, and for more on the controversy visit evolutionnews.org.

Robert Crowther, Discovery Institute

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. See http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com

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. I think
the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."

Later in the interview he states:

"It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that
Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

It certainly seems that the "scientific discoveries" that changed Dr. Flew's mind and caused him to abandon his life's work is appropriately examined in an academic setting.

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." There is no "theory of intelligent design;" there is nothing about "intelligent design" that can be taught--- no observations, no hypothesies, no tests, and no falsification. "Intelligent design" belongs in churches, not in places of education.

Is it "censorship" to not have lectures on astrology at SMU?

Is it "censorship" to not have lectures on phrenology at SMU?

Is it "censorship" to not have lectures on witch craft at SMU?

Is it "censorship" to not have lectures on The Prefideous Jew at SMU?

If the authors of this absurd opinion piece REALLY believe it is "censorship" to exclude false beliefs from SMU, would they gladly allow scientists to force their way, under the pretense of giving sermons, into churches and give lectures on Sunday about evolution, evolutionary theory, heliocentrism, paleontology, geology, and cosmophysics? If they would object, is that "censorship?"

There are times and places for occult nonsense such as "intelligent design." SMU is not the correct place. There are hundreds of thousands of churches in the USA where "intelligent design" may be "taught" (if someone ever discovers anything about it that *CAN* be "taught").

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.

Their motivation behind the debate offer is a transparent attempt to gain credibility and legitimacy among those of the population who are less knowledgeable about science and the way it works. They want to be able to say, "look, some mainstream scientists debated the issue of Darwin vs. Design - there's a controversy!"

In reality, this is all they can do, as the Intelligent Design "movement" has made no headway, and appears not even TRYING to make progress in the only way that it counts. Namely: Apply the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, predict, test, adjust, repeat), subject the work to honest peer-review and publish the results in the appropriate journals. That's how to gain acceptance in science. Not through meaningless debates that do nothing to advance knowledge, such as what the Discovery Institute proposes.

I want to hold a conferance at SMU titled "Stork vs Sex" to reveal the facts behind how human babies come to exist, but the academic rulers at SMU are all closed-minded idology-driven censorship-mongering dissent-squashing elitist liberal snobs. I demand the end of this censorship and the right to academic freedom! The Stork Theory is a legitimate alternative to the absurd and irreducibly complex sex lie.

Until SMU opens its doors to the truth about where babies come from, they will never have academic freedom.

What's next, a conference on astrology? That would certainly enhance SMU's academic reputation.

And if you think that's a straw man argument, check out Michael Behe's testimony for the defense in the Kitzmiller trial. On cross examination, Behe was forced to admit that under his definition of science, both astrology and intelligent design are science.

What is proposed is neither Science nor a Debate.

What it is in fact is a religious 'dog and pony show' put on by an Apologist, two Philosophers, and a clapped out, discredited Biochemist, who has done almost no scientific research since becoming an ID-advocate (and none at all into ID), whose own department has disavowed his ideas, and who lost any residual credibility when he admitted that his favoured definition of science encompasses Astrology.

What they will present is a bunch of tired, long-debunked, dishonest 'arguments' for ID. No evidence. No science. Nothing of value. Nothing to debate.

If you want an 'argument' go down the hall to the Philosophy or Theology departments. Science is for evidence not arguments.

Great post. Keep it up. I don't care if any of the authors are DI affiliates or Darwinists.

Censorship in this specific area is clearly rabid and ubiquitous in America these days. Anyone on either side should complain.

The usual bull shit about religious underpinnings is useless and irrelevant.

Also, the DI did not invent ID. It's a lot older and far more intelligent than the materialist creation myth - Darwinism - with it's metaphysical constructs and underlying assumptions & presumptions as to what can and cannot be known "empirically".

Theory: "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

According to this, Darwinism doesn't even qualify as a valid theory!!

Therefore there should be far more public debate and information release on this extremely important issue since origins of human life theories have profound consequences on human morals and activities.

Darwin's views are falling apart as each year goes by through the onslaught of information theory and discoveries of genetic code concurrent functional complexities.

Multiple concurrent functionality simply does not occur without mind, planning, algorithm and design.

Is the fact that astrology not being taught in public schools censorship? A lot of people believe in it; shouldn't it be taught as well? Intelligent Design Creationism falls in the same category: not-even-pseudo-science. And, yes, it doesn't matter if IDC is religiously-based or not, it's just rubbish from start to finish, whoever thought it up or when.

Pulling a definition of scientific theory from a random website and then quoting someone out of context (a practice called "quote mining", something creationists are good at - well, they do it a lot, anyway) neither undermines evolutionary theory or, more importantly, supports IDC. Schwartz accepts evolution, he is just of the opinion that changes come all at once instead of gradually. You'll notice he explicitly states that evolution is true, while trying to cast doubt on gradualism.

Tell you what: you take some science courses and work in the field for 20-30 years, and then we'll listen to what you have to say. In the meantime, public debate is irrelevant to truth, only research can reveal that.

As to morals, remember that science does not say what SHOULD happen, only what DOES happen. And remember that in spite of creationist lies, every bit of evidence supports evolution, none of it - NONE - undermines it. There is NO evidence for a magical creator who made everything. NONE.

There are fewer and fewer venues where ID promoters can sell their snake-oil. Whenever possible, they find some campus Christian group to sponsor them, then issue PR suggesting that the college or university has sponsored them. They crave the validation of academe yet denigrate the "liberal elite" they claim inhabit it. It must be hard living with a split mind. On the one hand, many Center for Science & Culture fellows have earned Ph.D.'s in just such "liberal elite" environments (though mostly not in evolutionary biology). On the other, they hate the them. Split mind, schizoid mind, whatever. It's good that so many students and faculties have become aware of the DI and its many deceptions.