< Back | Home
Freedom of Speech vs. License
By:
Posted: 4/11/07
It is noted that Aeschylus, in the 5th century B.C., wrote that truth
is the first victim of war. As the conflict between science and
religion once again heats up, truth is again in danger of being the
victim. An academic campus is logically the appropriate setting for the
science-religion debate, but it ought not to become a battlefield, lest
truth be sacrificed by emotion and freedom become license.
It is for this reason that academics must be very careful not to tread
heavily on either freedom of speech or its unreasoned license. Just as
truth itself grows and changes with experience, so the pursuit of it
without open debate has always the possibility of leading to falsehood.
It is understandable, then, that many of us in the sciences were taken
by surprise and reacted strongly to the announcement that Seattle's
Discovery Institute had scheduled a conference on "Darwin vs. Design"
this semester in McFarlin Auditorium. This is not to be a debate or
balanced discussion, but rather a partisan promotion of the assertion
that design in nature constitutes scientific evidence for a creator,
the so-called theory of Intelligent Design (ID).
Our protest (initially, a call for disallowing the conference until its
legal scheduling was confirmed) immediately drew claims that we are
trying to "censor scientists and scholars advocating Intelligent
Design…." The Institute further claimed that we are "trying to
intimidate people who are in some way associated with researching
Intelligent Design into being quiet, rather than engaging in a civil
debate about the scientific merits of their arguments."
This is patently untrue, and is but one reason for our objection to the
venue. The conference will promote this and other false statements
designed to discredit science and scientists. In fact, some of us have
actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in
our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the
university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific
Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five
anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate.
No intimidation. No censorship.
We continue to encourage casting light on these issues and reducing the
heat of passion. The coming ID conference is more likely to generate
heat. We should not misunderstand the avowed intent of these
conferences (an identical one was held this March in Knoxville). They
are carefully planned to further the Institute's goal to "encourage and
equip believers with new scientific evidence's [sic] that support the
faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."
This evangelical motive is carefully disguised in their promotional
material.
It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and
forthrightness in any public program on a university campus. The
program purports, by its title, to be a scientific examination of
"Darwin v. Design." Truth has already become victim, alas. The
university erred in scheduling this.
About the writer:
Ronald K. Wetherington is a professor of anthropology at SMU. He can be reached at rwetheri@smu.edu.
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus