University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution

Discovery Institute ^ | 10/06/05 | John MIller

[Sopater]

The UI President's letter can be found here: Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students

This amounts to censorship and unreasonable restrictions in science as the pursuit of knowledge. To exclusively promote one philosophical world view over all others and call it science is shameful and indefensible in my humble opinion. I strongly suggest that no philosophies be taught in science as "fact". All of the evidence supports the truth and truth is what science seeks to find, regardless of any worldview.

[camle]

censorship is alive and well and living at a university near you.

[BipolarBob]

Creationism has its evidence as well.

[JustAnotherOkie]

You say Idaho I say WhoDaHo.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Tax-funded academic and intellectual freedoms at work....[/sarcasm]

[wideawake]

A state government official banning certain kinds of speech.

Interesting.

[Red Badger]

You mean they AREN'T?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?..........

[mlc9852]

Just where I would imagine finding censorship, too.

[alloysteel]

The theory of evolution is not incompatible with the theory of "intelligent Design".

In fact, neither one could work without the other. Otherwise we should all be microbes, single-celled creatures, and we wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation.

[MarineBrat]

>censorship is alive and well and living at a university near you.

>Yes! Bring back the stork theory of human baby delivery to biology class!

No, BAN THE STORK!

[camle]

wanna pay him unemployment?

[zook]

Please, I don't want to start a brawl or anything, but what sort of *scientific* response does "intelligent design" offer when confronted with the question, "what created the designer?"

[joesnuffy]

Dogma pretending to be academic freedom and value free science.

[L98Fiero]

Please, I don't want to start a brawl or anything, but what sort of *scientific* response does "intelligent design" offer when confronted with the question, "what created the designer?"

Well, the point is that U of I has banned such discussions. How are answers to question like yours to be answered if universities ban the discussion of such concepts?

[RunnerMom]

but, it seems the more things are banned, the more attention they attract

[gondramB]

"censorship is alive and well and living at a university near you."


I agree it is heavy handed but it's not censorship any more than if e said the physics department was only to teach that matter is made of atoms and that atoms are made protons, neutron and electrons.

There are problems with atomic theory too but it is the best current scientific thinking - and that is what should be taught in science class.

Now, I'm a Christian and I believe in intelligent design, i.e. God acting through evolution but God has not left proof. He wants faith. That is not science and should not be taught in science class.

[zook]

Well, the point for me is that while intelligent design may be a great topic for a philosophy course, it might have no place in a science course, if it can't offer a scientific response to the question of how the "intelligence" came to be.

[camle]

so... if i get your reply (thank you btw), you are infavor of teaching people that the only way things happenned was by a manner that you beleive is incorrect.

so you advocate teaching falsehoods?

[B Knotts]

I'm a bit confused. Why was this necessary? Are there science professors there teaching creationism? Or is this just being done to make a point?

There are some rather strange theories taught under the aegis of such "disciplines" as women's studies, but no such prohibitions in those areas seem to be forthcoming.