Response to the ID decision

William Murchison provides a typical response to the decision that ID doesn’t belong in biology class in For the Science Room, No Free Speech (Human Events 05dc27). The title of this piece itself is indicative of the fact that the sides of the debate are not arguing to the same issue.

Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones’ anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools’ Darwinian monopoly.

monopoly? just before Christmas? Is this argument loaded, or what?

Jones’ contempt for the “breathtaking inanity” of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism’s “gaps/problems” is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive — at best.

Is science a matter of public opinion? Like Ohio that tried to pass legislation defining the value of pi?

This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that “natural selection” has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn’t? The science classroom can’t take cognizance of such a possibility?

What factors should that classroom use to discriminate between appropriate and innapropriate subject matter in order to be honest with its definition of subject?

Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the “free speech” amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.

Is divinity what a science class is about? Does free speech include promulgation of dishonesty?

With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, … the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom

These perceptions and conclusions about the ‘opposition’ indicate that reason and understanding are not a part of the argument being presented.

What seems to have been added recently is the free speech argument. Is there free speech in the classroom for either the student or the teacher? Isn’t this the big issue in the matter of professors and teachers promulgating political points of view in nonpolitical classes? Indoctrination?

The issue is what should be taught in the guise of biological science and who should decide what topics are appropriate. The judge in PA made a ruling on this. ID advocates don’t like that ruling. Murchison provides an example of how the ID advocates respond to the ruling and in so doing discredit their own point of view.

Comments are closed.