The Controversy with Academic Freedom on Evolution In The Public Schools

Last April, a controversial documentary, staring Ben Stein brought academic censorship to light directed at   mainstream Americans firstly, then the rest of the world. As a result, it has sparked state and local governments in trying to pass what is known as the “Academic Freedom Bill.” Recently a video has surfaced with Ben Stein making a public announcement about this very subject…

Censorship in the universities and public schools is not too surprising considering secularists and special interests alike use “separation of church and state” as a way to be less than neutral in the educational system. But as Christians we certainly do not want the State start teaching doctrine. Since the public is a very diverse group, it would not be not possible to teach sound doctrine to everyone’s liking.

Besides, it’s the main duty of the church to be preaching and teaching the Word of God not the State. So what about questioning evolution and critical looking at it’s strengths and weaknesses? Isn’t that a form of teaching religion in the public schools? No, one can be critical of evolutionary theories and not actually teach God as being the designer or creationism in general as shown in the video below.

Keep in my Stephen Meyer is an ID proponent which means the designer is unknown, and it’s history is non-existent. Meaning, all this concept accepts is an intelligent agent had created new information for the creation of different species, but from there evolution takes place.

Some say, it’s water down creationism, because of the conclusion it brings out, not on the basis of it’s argument. But in reality it’s more like water down evolution. Intelligent design proponents have there own little war with creationism. I say “little” because currently they are more at war with naturalistic evolution and it’s censorship of ID concepts.

Academic Freedom on evolution is much needed in the public schools. Students and teachers alike should be more free in expressing critical ideas about evolution. Teachers should not be so upset, if evolution is being critically looked at by the students. Teachers should also not be in the business of censoring certain controversial thoughts being displayed, because they may disagree with evolution.


4 thoughts on “The Controversy with Academic Freedom on Evolution In The Public Schools

  1. Intelligent Design isn’t science. There’s nothing scientific about it. Just because someone with a doctorate has cooked this up doesn’t make it science either. The reason it is not science is because it jumps to conclusions. If the ID community really wanted to open up the conversation then they would also open it to the possibility that we were created by something other then god/dog because we have yet to prove there is a god. SO then, ID would be a proponent of Alien life forms coming to earth and creating us. WHy not? Seems more likely then some made of guy in the clouds.

    See, ID proponents don’t want to join the scientific conversation because if they did they would submit their work to scientists around the world and have them look through it. Just like every single other scientist and what happens when they come up with a new theory. The scientific community as a whole decides which theories were actually formulated using the scientific method. ID was not, is not, and never will be science.

  2. Defining science is simply put, “Represents a structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge.”

    That’s the very core of what science is all about, isn’t it not? Intelligent Design proponents do in fact study things like cells and their machinery for the purpose of obtaining more knowledge. There is no difference between an evolutionist studying a cell than an intelligent designer. Both are examining the data for the purpose of obtaining knowledge.

    What could be considered different to you is, an evolutionist will create an hypothesis first when it comes to origin, then look for answers. While an ID proponent will look for a pattern first, then create an hypothesis. Not long ago, there was a well known scientist, not an ID proponent by no means, in the field of medicine who was his testing patients first, before creating a proposal. He too, was looking for a pattern first.

    The other difference is the conclusion, on the issues of specified and irreducible complexity. Both principles are not found in any religious text.

    Yes I agree, Intelligent Design does leave the door open to the idea of alien life forms helping the creation of our solar system and perhaps our universe. Much like Dawkins who is a well known atheist is also open to the idea. It wouldn’t be such a surprising belief considering if you think the alien life forms are thousands to millions of years advanced than humans.

    Even though there is no shred of scientific evidence of alien life forms anywhere let alone helping created our planet, the only reason why it’s considered because the likes of Dawkins consider it naturalism. ID will not consider pacifically who or what the intelligent agent is, it has no history in origin.

    The scientific community is not right all the time. These are fallible men who make mistakes. There are many new proposals within the evolutionary framework all the time, yet they are not censored but are regularly published.

    The reason why scientific papers are published in the first place, is to allow the public and other scientists to look critically at them, to discuss them. To look at the weakness and strength of the proposal. They can also agree or disagree with the proposal. But the scientific community has no right to censor or intimidate other scientists who submit scientific papers which they disagree with because of it’s conclusion or anything else for that matter.

  3. Where does “academic freedom” stop? Does it only extend to evolution? Or should it also extend to alternate ideas about gravity, thermodynamics, and so on?

    In fact, why should it only apply to science? The vast majority of history wasn’t witnessed by anyone living. Perhaps we should also be promoting a more questioning nature in other academic areas as well.

  4. Interesting question, generally you don’t see any controversial about math for example. Both public and religious schools do in fact teach the same kind of math from the basics to the advance skills. Teaching reading skills, there is conflict there as one public school might teach the “look say” method, while a private school might teach phonics which deals with learning 26 letters and 46 sounds that go with those letters in English. Other languages vary of course. Both methods can be used in both types of schools. Some teaching methods will work better than others.

    History is controversial no question about it. People have different slants on history. America’s history has been well documented. We know many things about the founding fathers of America because they wrote so much.

    Would teachers be given to freedom to question secularism in history? Such as in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized and selected paid Congressional chaplains.

    In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible society in it’s goal to help distribute Bibles nationwide.

    Can you imagine today the response, if President Bush or President Elect Obama signed a federal bill to help a religious group distribute Bibles nationwide? I know your reaction if something like that happened today! It would be illegal for the government to do that today, yet some say, the US was founded on secularism.

    Now Madison like Jefferson were an eyewitness to the founding principles of the United States. So one can tell by their actions in government, about their view of church/state issues.

    I agree, you can’t say that about all of history. I believe however, there should be freedom of inquiry in all subjects. That doesn’t mean the students or teachers are always trying to undermine each other, although that could happen too. but it’s a good way to learn things in this complex world in which we live in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s