It’s normal to come across random drivel claiming that scientists are refusing to allow a free and open discussion of intelligent design. To begin with, the intelligent design movement has yet to provide a single shred of research into intelligent design. The handful of papers that they actually have produced have been criticisms of evolutionary theory; most of these have been published outside of the normal channels for peer review (or, in one case, published by having a friendly editor bypass the normal peer review system), and have generally been shown to be fatally flawed (see, for example, Wesley Elsberry’s account of the Dembski & Marks manuscript) or really don’t address the subject, despite the Discovery Institutes‘s claims to the contrary. Since there is no science behind it, and its arguments are specious, intelligent design has no place in the classroom (except, perhaps, as a teaching tool for what constitutes bad science/pseudoscience).
Google Alerts brought me an article which includes this quote:
The same academicians that railed against government intrusion during the Scopes Monkey Trial now lobby for a government imposed curriculum that prohibits an open exchange of ideas concerning Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Generally this is the kind of nonsense that doesn’t even deserve an answer. After all, it’s wrong on so many levels (the same academics? Really? They must be pretty old by now) that you have to wonder if anyone would take something like that seriously. Sadly, it’s attributed to Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. I’m curious who these elderly academics who “[prohibit] an open exchange of ideas concerning Darwinism and Intelligent Design” are. When Dembski came to visit, no one tried to stop him. There was “an open exchange of ideas” in the Q&A after his talk. Sadly, Dembski, like all the other IDists, had nothing new to say, nothing that hadn’t been refuted over and over. And yet, despite their cries of “help, help, I’m being repressed“, none of them have said a word in support of Richard Colling, who is actually under attack for teaching science.
Perhaps the sentence which follows that one explains things
Many scholars now declare that personal life is completely off limits in assessing a man’s or woman’s fitness for public service. The “content of a man’s character” is no longer as important as his physical characteristics and political loyalties.
I suppose a bit of the truth slips through. It’s hilarious, of course, since it’s meant as a criticism of society at large. But when one follows up a thoroughly false statement by saying “[t]he “content of a man’s character” is no longer as important as his physical characteristics and political loyalties“, I suppose it’s a sign of a bit of a conscience slipping through.