University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution

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

[Sopater]

University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.

"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's what science is -- the assumption that natural causes can be found.

Well, natural causes is usually incurable. No one is ever diagnosed with a bad case of natural causes, even if they die of it.

[Rudder]

The central premise of Darwinian theory is that life was somehow "born" from the pool of unliving ingredients...

The topic sentence of your statement is completely erroneous. Maybe you're on the wrong thread by mistake...(I've done that before.)

If, however, you are participating in this discussion, it would be beneficial to you to educate yourself about the topic you're debating. PatrickHenry (a FReeper) has a good compilation of resources.

[Dimensio]

Do you have an alternative scientific theory to evolution?

[whattajoke]

Just piling on now, but I'm bored...

The central premise of Darwinian theory is that life was somehow "born" from the pool of unliving ingredients

This is akin to someone going into the Religion threads and beginning a critique of Christianity stating, "The central premise of Christianity is that all adherents must tithe regularly." See, the media makes it seem that way sometimes, and there are most likely many Christians who believe that. But it's absurdly wrong to anyone who actually knows the "central premise" of Christianity.

I trust now you'll never state your falsehood again. Thank you.

[Oztrich Boy]

They can teach your belief in "religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses". How many classes covering your belief do you want?

But but "University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution"

I'm shocked, shocked that the Discovery Institute lied.

[Oztrich Boy]

if evolution is true AND God is true, why teach one but not the other?

You do know how many theories of God there are? All equally valid from a scholarly or intellectual viewpoint.

It'd take several lifetimes to teach them all.

[Mr. Blonde]

This is censorship because it wants religious viewpoints taught in the appropriate classes? Is it also censorship if my math teacher refuses to teach political science to me?

[Oztrich Boy]

For a perspective on Richard Milton by Richard (/topic Dawkins, Lewontin, Leakey.... How many evolutionisns are there named Richard compared to similarly nmaed anti-evolutionists? maybe someone should make a list)

A cynic might note that there is a paying public out there, hungry for simple religious certitude, who will lap up anything with a subtitle like ‘Shattering the Myth of Darwinism.’

[SuziQ]

Do you have an alternative scientific theory to evolution?

No, I don't, but I'm not a scientist. However, it is a THEORY, so the ideas of the scientists who are questioning it should be entertained.

[WKUHilltopper]

"Now, do you have an example of a "lone scientists" who was apparently shunned by the scientific community only to have his or her works embraced by the scientific community several decades later? Names please."

LOL...Galileo, maybe?

[Rudder]

However, it is a THEORY

It's not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Do you know the difference? If not, I, or many other FReepers, will be glad to assist you.

[Dimensio]

I wasn't aware that Galileo's opposition came from the "cientific community". In fact, I was under the impression that the objections to his research were religiously motivated.

[SuziQ]

No, thank you. I may not be a scientist, but I'm not stupid.

[Dimensio]

No, I don't, but I'm not a scientist. However, it is a THEORY, so the ideas of the scientists who are questioning it should be entertained.

You say "theory" in all-caps like you understand the significance. Please explain what is meant by "theory".

[RightOnline]

Good to see he's so f**king brilliant. I'll chuck my Bible and hang onto this prick's every word from now on.

[shuckmaster]

The central premise of Darwinian theory is that life was somehow "born" from the pool of unliving ingredients

Stop lying! This is a conservative forum and we get all the pure BS we need from the libs.

[JCEccles]

He simply stated the University's rule that the topics in the biophysical science class will contain only the relevant science. They'd do and say the same to address any other attempted corruption.

Yes. The faith must be kept pure and unsullied. Free and open inquiry is too dangerous.

Darwinism's high priest has spoken.

[JCEccles]

There is incomparably greater freedom to debate evolution and intelligent design at FR that there is at the University of Idaho.

That's amazing.

Although I fully believe that FR's Darwinists would, if they could, stifle the debate here as well.

[Rudder]

No, thank you. I may not be a scientist, but I'm not stupid.

Then why assert that a THEORY (presumably any theory) should be allowed in a university classroom?

I've got a theory: You are stupid, despite your protestations.

[spunkets]

"Yes. The faith must be kept pure and unsullied. Free and open inquiry is too dangerous.

It's a science journal. The reviewer's job is to review and judge fitness for publicaiton on the scientific soundness of the article presented.

The reviewer should have been able to grasp that ID is not science. That ID concludes and claims that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. That is the central fact that should have caused the article to be sent back for change, or rejected outright.

"Darwinism's high priest has spoken."

Whatever. ID remains unscientific and science is not faith.