Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Academic Freedom isn’t a License to Present Non-Science like ID
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Academic Freedom isn’t a License to Present Non-Science like ID
- From National Center for Science Education
By National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A very good point
Just because ID claims that it is scientifically relevant and in fact can lead to affect research directions, does not mean that their claims are accurate and truthful, especially given the simple fact that in the last 10-15 years, ID has failed to show much of any example that supports their claims. Their chosen method to infer design has remained vacuous scientifically and there is no compelling reason why ID, which has the right to speak, should deserve the right to be heard.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No it isn't...
It is entirely misleading to imply that "Academic Freedom is gives license to Present Non-Science, like ID"
These academic freedom bills, which typically work in conjunction with the science standards are written to strictly prohibit the teaching of religion, creationism, “creation science”, “creation facts”, and ID.
Any attempt to violate the law will put teachers and/or schools in jeopardy of prosecution, so all of the necessary mechanisms to prevent this from happening are securely in place. Will wacky creationists attempt to challenge this? Yes, but that's how separation laws work, and this will sort out what is considered to be valid "scientific information". That's the part that neodarwinians don't want to face.
They automatically over-react to assume that the DI has simply repackaged their game, rather than to change it’s tactics, but this has not been established, and is not what these laws typically allow, so the bogus assertion is based solely on the paranoid fear of the historic actions of creationists. Academic Freedom is NOT "stealth creationism" because it includes an enforceable separation law.
This kind of stereotypically predictable reaction-ism, and the ideologically distorted half-truths or blatant lies that go with it, are the reason why I’ve started this very incomplete list for the next academic freedom go-round in Florida.
Bobby J. also got a copy, and I hope that I had an effect on him:
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll /section?category=PluckPersona&U=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf
Creationists know full-well that there are many unjustified or weakly supported assumptions about a number of obviously relevant evolutionary mechanisms that creationists are perfectly justified to cry foul about when they are dishonestly mislead in the manner that the unspoken assumption entails, intentionally, or otherwise.
Very much like what you’ll find in the “scientific paper”,(aka, cop-out on science), that is discussed here, which exposes that the author quite obviously evades the creationist question in order to call absurdity an answer:
Eugine Koonin
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll /section?category=PluckPersona&U=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cfPost%3ae8907753-9663-4ef8-a395-135e9e4872ba&sid=sitelife.tallahassee.com
You are cracked in the head if you think that creationists shouldn’t have the right to ask for better answers than these kind of causally irresponsible issue-avoidance “answers” that very strongly appear to be intentionally designed avoid their questions, and frankly, it hurts me to the core that I even have to say that about scientists.
- island September 10, 2008 10:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Academic freedom is not the right to be heard.
--It is entirely misleading to imply that "Academic Freedom is gives license to Present Non-Science, like ID"
These academic freedom bills, which typically work in conjunction with the science standards are written to strictly prohibit the teaching of religion, creationism, “creation science”, “creation facts”, and ID.
--
Indeed, they are, lacking any scientific content of ID, quite the same. The history of ID, via the Wedge Document, and the seminal work of Barbara Forrest and Paul R Gross titled "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" should be an addition to anyone's library.
See for more information http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com /
--Island--
This kind of stereotypically predictable reaction-ism, and the ideologically distorted half-truths or blatant lies that go with it, are the reason why I’ve started this very incomplete list for the next academic freedom go-round in Florida.
--
You may be too harsh towards ID proponents. As I and others have, quite convincingly I would argue, shown, the right to speak is not a right to be heard. Certainly, there is no compelling reason why ID has earned a right to be heard in science classes, not because it is religiously motivated, that seems self evident, but rather because it has no scientific content.
As to ID's claims against evolutionary theory, Nick Matzke is doing a fine job at exposing how ignorance or avoidance of scientific research can lead one to make some very silly claims about what evolution can and cannot do. For an even more chilling example, I suggest one reads Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and then the scientific reality as documented by the NCSE
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells /
claims of academic freedom to attempt to get scientifically vacuous ideas introduced into our schools' curricula should be rejected by anyone interested in the future of education in this country.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Look Ma... PvM can't address the point again...
Wow you recited every last stereotype without addressing a single point that was made:
PvM:
"Indeed, they are, lacking any scientific content of ID"
No, as I said, they are "typically", by law, strictly prohibitive of ID creationism, which is a huge difference that you don't want to willingly acknowledge. Your attempt to downplay the significance and the teeth of these laws is highly telling.
Pvm thinks that I was talking about ID proponents:
"You may be too harsh towards ID proponents."
LOL... look in the mirror.
PvM stated:
"claims of academic freedom to attempt to get scientifically vacuous ideas introduced into our schools' curricula should be rejected by anyone interested in the future of education in this country."
I've come to the conclusion that you can't read, or maybe you just don't speak English since the Academic Freedom Bills don't allow for any such thing, and I very clearly stated why they are needed, which has absolutely no application to anything that you said. Like I said... you're cracked in the head if... and you did.
We'll call it the non-applicable rebuttal, and you have certainly proven that you pwn' it... ;)
- island September 10, 2008 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gone fishing?
--Island--
No, as I said, they are "typically", by law, strictly prohibitive of ID creationism, which is a huge difference that you don't want to willingly acknowledge. Your attempt to downplay the significance and the teeth of these laws is highly telling.
--
ID creationism seems not dissimilar from other creationist attempts to introduce God into our science curriculum. ID, lacking scientific vacuity is now attempted to be smuggled back in under the guise of "academic freedom" or "teach the controversy" even though ID is neither academic nor controversial in a scientific sense as it is at best without content.
Perhaps I am missing your point here.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why should the NCSE be concerned?
The National Center for Science Education has a good reason to be concerned about 'Intelligent Design'. The reason for this concern is to be found in a leaked document which outlines the motivations behind the 'Intelligent Design' movement, called the "Wedge".
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
__Governing Goals__
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
After having failed to gain intellectual traction, the ID approach changed to 'teach the controversy' and when that failed, to "academic freedom". Of course, while this is, as several people have so well explained, is NOT an issue of academic freedom, the 'bait and switch' strategies of ID continue under the motto of "the end justifies the means".
Ask yourself, would you want your kids taught unscientific concepts in their schools' science classes? If your answer is "of course not", then why are you undermining "academic freedom"?
The answer is simple, it is not really an issue of "academic freedom".
So ask yourself, "What has ID done to positively contribute to science?"
Tricky isn't it.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False debate between political lobbies
Certainly there are problems with ID, and ID in the classroom, but it is hard to see how discussion can be restricted to Darwin dogma. Teaching the controversy has to be something more than an excuse for Trojan horse tactics by religionists, but it is easy to conceive how it could be done right.
The debate has been falsely restricted to two points of view, both of which are really packaged propaganda pieces produced by political lobbies, e.g. the Discovery Institute and the NCSE. Neither of these lobbies has any interest in debate, hoping at best to reach a stalemate in the control of classrooms.
The debate here is false, because both ID and Darwinian/natural selection theory are inadequate. Teaching the controversy should help students see that ideology is at work trying to seize the classroom.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Academic Freedom and Peer Review
Perhaps what is needed is to distinguish between academic freedom and peer review. Many regulations about academic freedom are broad, and like laws and regulations about free speech, can protect someone like a tenured professor from being fired even if researching something that most academics consider nonsense.
Academic freedom is one thing. But whether the research being done by someone whose academic freedom is protected is in fact worthwhile or not is a completely separate question. To determine that, it is necessary to look at the evidence, the evaluation of peers and other experts, the fruitfulness of the research program, and other such factors. It is in this area that ID is clearly lacking, as even some of its proponents acknowledge.
Proponents of ID can call for academic freedom all they want, but the freedom to explore a topic has no relevance, ultimately, to the question of the merit of one's conclusions.
Intelligent Design, it must be recalled, was the prevailing viewpoint for a very long time. So was flood geology. Far from there being a conspiracy to stifle such views, many scientists in the 19th century were extremely reluctant to depart from these established viewpoints. But the consensus changed because of the enormous amounts of evidence pointing to a different set of conclusions being more likely.
And this, in a nutshell, is the issue. The proponents of Intelligent Design and of young-earth creationism have this in common: they want to drag science back to the 19th century, as though all the progress and all the evidence amassed in the mean time doesn't matter.
- ReligionProf
September 19, 2008 10:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't be uncommitted - pick science over nonsense
"The debate here is false, because both ID and Darwinian/natural selection theory are inadequate."
Whether or not the Theory of Evolution is "inadequate" is not an issue. The question is: Is it scientific? Does it have a scientific mechanism that could explain and predict the "tree of life"?
But there is no "Theory of Intelligent Design" and it can never be scientific.
The overall question is: Does intelligent design have merit? The obvious answer is no - because it explains everything (every living thing is designed?) and yet it does not have any kind of scientific "mechanism" (like mutation and natural selection) that could ever actually explain anything.
- onein6billion
September 30, 2008 7:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where is the proof?
"Teachers have no freedom to misinform and miseducate students." There is no proof of either side in this issue. Where is the missing link? Teachers should be teaching both sides and presenting only facts that are able to be proven. We have no proof that evolution really happened as we have no proof that ID never happened. Remember that Darwin was a true racist. Read "Origin of the species" He claims that the Irish are the bottom of the evolutionary food chain. I guess teachers have the right to teach the ravings of a racist if it fits their needs.
- purelabor
September 25, 2008 11:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pure ignorance
Purelabor claims that there is no proof for either side. Now I appreciate that he admits that ID has not proof but evolutionary theory is based on an exceptional depth and breadth of evidence.
To call Darwin a true racist you have to ignore the facts. But I understand that calling him a racist is much easier than to refute his theory.
Oh, I understand.
Ignorance is a powerful motivator amongst some creationists, ID reinforces that by calling it design.
- PvM
September 26, 2008 9:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are the Irish too stupid for mankind?
You can't offer anymore than theory for one or the other. I just believe that an open mind is far more important than only one view that can not be proven.
As for Darwin, have you read his books or are just brain washed into thinking that science is always right. Cattle follow the leader without questioning the direction.
I don't know the answer. However, I keep an open mind.
Remember that once upon a time, man knew that the world was flat, he knew the world was the center of the universe and he knew that the Earth sat on the shoulders of giant elephants. Science is sometimes wrong. Like it or not. But, I would like to see the missing link that can't seem to be found.
I didn't say one way or the other. But I have read the works of Darwin, and anyone that bias I have a problem with. And he was a racist. Read before you go up to call out the big boys. If you don't see the racist in his works than I feel sorry for you.
- purelabor
September 26, 2008 4:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry to hear
--
You can't offer anymore than theory for one or the other. I just believe that an open mind is far more important than only one view that can not be proven.
--
On the contrary, I could fill countless books to support the Darwinian and evolutionary theories while the ID 'theory' can be summarized as 'I do not understand: thus poof'
--
As for Darwin, have you read his books or are just brain washed into thinking that science is always right. Cattle follow the leader without questioning the direction.
--
I have read most of his books and even some of his unpublished manuscripts. Furthermore, Darwinism as it exists today is strengthened by a vast amount of additional knowledge not originally accessible to Darwin.
--
I don't know the answer. However, I keep an open mind.
--
No you don't. You have not studied evolutionary theory which you so foolishly describe as lacking evidence.
--
And he was a racist. Read before you go up to call out the big boys. If you don't see the racist in his works than I feel sorry for you.
--
Note the lack of evidence and the name calling. All clear evidence of a lack of argument.
Well done, purelabor but you surely can do better than this now can you? Or are you unable to support even your more outrageous claims?
I do understand, that's the most commonly observed modus operandus of ID proponents.
Don't feel sorry for me, present an argument, surprise us, enlighten us, thrill us with your arguments.
- PvM
September 27, 2008 8:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.