Home » Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design » SMU: “Did I say leprosy? I meant intelligent design!”

SMU: “Did I say leprosy? I meant intelligent design!”

In response to the upcoming Darwin vs. Design seminar at Southern Methodist University April 13th and 14th (featuring Lee Strobel, Steve Meyer, Mike Behe, and Jay Richards — go here), the university is set to issue the following statement in response:

Under SMU’s procedures for making appropriate campus facilities available for community events, McFarlin Auditorium has been rented by the Discovery Institute April 13-14 for a program titled “Darwin vs. Design.” SMU policy requires that groups using campus facilities must have a University organization as a co-sponsor. In this case, the Christian Legal Society, a student group in SMU’s Dedman School of Law, is co-sponsoring the event. Although SMU makes its facilities available as a community service, and in support of the free marketplace of ideas, providing facilities for those programs does not imply SMU’s endorsement of the presenters’ views.

In this case, the Departments of Anthropology, Biological Sciences, and Geological Sciences in SMU’s Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences wish to reaffirm their commitment to applying rigorous scientific principles to teaching and research on the subject of evolution.

Okay, all together now with feeling: “WE LOVE DARWIN. WE LOVE EVOLUTION. WE LOVE THE STATUS QUO.” It’s a good thing SMU doesn’t know that I’m scheduled to speak there on April 12th (stay tuned here — it’s yet to be announced). Sssshhhh!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to SMU: “Did I say leprosy? I meant intelligent design!”

  1. It would seem from the context of their statement that their “commitment to applying rigorous scientific principles” does not entail openness to criticism and dialogue with those holding opposing views in the marketplace of ideas.

  2. One can imagine that were this upcoming seminar to celebrate sodomy or apologize for Islamic terror there would be no such statement.

  3. It’s a good thing SMU doesn’t know that I’m scheduled to speak there on April 12th

    They do NOW! mwahaha!!
    ………..
    On the serious note, I have to agree with Rude@2. I wonder if SMU would post a similar “disclaimer” if the topic was “How Israel is Bad and Palestinian Are Under Apartheid” or “The Evils of Christianity”.

    Another thing worth noticing is that this disclaimer was probably aimed at other Darwinists and not to Darwin-skeptics. I guess SMU doesn’t want people to think that they have “crossed to the dark side”.

  4. SMU: “In this case, the Departments of Anthropology, Biological Sciences, and Geological Sciences in SMU’s Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences wish to reaffirm their commitment to applying rigorous scientific principles to teaching and research on the subject of evolution.”

    If one knows anything about science, it is obvious that they are going out of their way to welcome this event. An endorsement. This is absolutely wonderful!
    __________

    Richard Feynman, “The Value of Science” (a public address given at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences):

    [W]e scientists…take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

    In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming “This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

    It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great process which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

    (Feynman won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965, for the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which has been called “the most precise and accurate theory, in terms of making predictions that are tested by experiment, that there has ever been.”

  5. (Feynman won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965, for the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which has been called “the most precise and accurate theory, in terms of making predictions that are tested by experiment, that there has ever been.”

    Pretty much like unguided evolution, I reckon….

  6. The reason physicists accept ID more is because they remember Newton’s laws. The more you push on ID the more it pushes back. Darwin defenders add a lot of fuel to the debate that wouldn’t be there if they just let it all play out.

Leave a Reply