Do you believe in free speech? One gets the feeling that if it were up to some of the professors at Michigan State University, “free ideas” wouldn’t be considered “scientific” therefore not allowed to be heard. Some pressure was also formulated to ban or censor a creation summit. In fact the University felt the need to put out this statement with an explanation because of the pressure…
“University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.”
Evolutionists have debate various theories, and explanations, this they say is part of science. What they mean is, this is part of Darwinian evolution only. Even if it’s non-Darwinian evolution, which is evolution but looking at what they consider to be different naturalistic mechanisms, they also have a problem with that too and thus wouldn’t be considered “scientific” rather they see as strengthening creationism. Much of that has to two with two things belief and money. If their research is considered irrelevant by whatever means they would lose grants. And if they loose grants, they may loose that extra income or eventually their jobs for that matter.
So what is this creationist conference? The conference contains four speakers, all whom have the highest degrees, Ph.Ds. They are…John Sanford, Jerry Bergman, Donald DeYoung and Charles Jackson.
Now some had suggested to use the “intelligent design” movement along with its methods because it supposedly offers the only evidence that would be acceptable for science without invoking religion (this of course is not true). And they cite some creationists agree with their arguments against Darwinian evolution (which is true). There are scientific arguments that confirm creationism and disprove evolution. But this doesn’t make intelligent design more scientific than creationism.
Here is the thing about the modern intelligent design movement vs. just using the term intelligent design. Creationism says that God is where information came from for life, but the intelligent design movement claims it was “intelligent agents” and then restricts further explanation by saying it goes beyond the realm of science. How could that be more scientific, when you can’t explain further on the origin of information? Evolution is the same way, there are things believed that could never be confirmed by science yet its still considered science.
Next, the modern intelligent design movement accepts the way evolutionists date the earth and universe. Not all intelligent design proponents believe in an old earth, but evidence shows quite clearly the universe is young.
The intelligent design movement believes in common decent, just like evolution. In fact, the intelligent design movement is so much like evolution, the only difference is they disagree what mechanism is doing it. In evolution, its natural selection, in the intelligent design movement, it’s…”agents.” Neither is confirmed by science. Using the term “intelligent design” is different, such as your computer, your car, your house or condo or man-made machines, these were all “intelligently designed” no common decent only variation.
The creation conference is a good thing, they went right into the heart of the lion’s den with sound evidence, which is why it brings tension to evolutionists who think otherwise.