For Darwinists There is No Presenting Both Sides in Intelligent Design Debate
Iowa State Daily yesterday published an article that they cheekily titled "Intelligent design opponents willing to debate." As your ead the article you see that this is Orwellian in the extreme. For their purposes these intelligent design opponents at Iowa State have redefined "debate" (a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides) to mean indoctrinate: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. There is no debate being considered, only a one-sided, negative presentation designed to denounce intelligent design.
The Iowa State Daily reports:
A new seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.This is not a debate. Nothing in this description sounds like an open debate, or civil discourse, or the free flow of ideas. It sounds like a one-sided attack on intelligent design.
The seminar will explore the history of biological evolution and recent developments in Intelligent Design, and according to its course description, "address why biological evolution is considered to be better science and why Intelligent Design is not."
On the hand, Dr. Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics in Iowa State's The Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology (GDCB) has been teaching a course called "God and Science" for the past five years that presents intelligent design in at least a more neutral, if not favorable, light.. According to the Daily:
Despite his personal views, he said he makes "every effort to be impartial," and welcomes critical evaluation from students."Finding Darwin's God" was written by the rabidly anti-ID Darwinist Ken Miller of Brown University. I hardly think that his book allows "for differing interpretations." It provides one interpretation, Miller's, which is that intelligent design is not science. There is no balance, no "debate" between two points of view allowed. At Iowa State, the idea of balance means that you present intelligent design in the most negative way possible.
The seminar's impartiality came under fire in 2003, when Ingebritsen brought his proposal for re-approval to the Honors curriculum committee, a process which occurs each time.
Ricardo Salvador, interim director for the agronomy department, said the textbook being used at the time was a "religious text that did not allow for differing interpretations."
Salvador said the issue was "resolved when the instructor agreed to change the textbook." The current text is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."
It's okay for Hector Avalos to teach a class that specifically denounces intelligent design, but it isn't okay for Tom Ingebritsen to teach a class that presents intelligent design and evolution impartially. This is supposed to be free and open debate? Curiously, a spokesperson for President Gregory Geoffroy said: "The president is fully supportive of the debate." What debate? Whatever he is supportive of it isn't fair and balanced presentation of scientific ideas. Apparently, as long as one doesn't actually present any supportive evidence or positive information about intelligent design, President Geoffroy is supportive of such debate.
You could probably light ISU for the holidays with energy coming off poor George Orwell's spinning body.