Public schools and universities teach evolution.
Evolution teaches that life emerged from non-life. Then, gradually, over billions of years, life developed into diverse and more complex life forms.
Theistic religions (example: Christianity) teach that a living creator created all life forms. Intelligent design proponents assert that there is substantial scientific evidence that tends to support this teaching.
The intellectual elite believe that evolution theory is science-based, but that creationism is religious-based pseudo-science. But, creation scientists demonstrate that certain features of living systems and the universe are most logically or best explained by an intelligent cause.
Throughout the past fifty years or so, appellate courts have universally upheld laws and policies that mandate evolution curriculum and have struck down laws or school policies that, in any degree or form, directly or allegedly indirectly seek to implement creation science and/or intelligent design theory into public school curriculum.
Further, universities and evolutionist professors claim that they are champions of free speech, academic freedom, and anti-dogmatism. But more and more, they have become the “new dogmatists”, intolerant, and seek to quench dissent of their viewpoint. They silence debate through persecution, i.e., refusing to promote and by firing professors who openly believe in creation. Many creationists in the various scientific fields, fearful of retaliation, keep their views (even their scientific views supporting creation) to themselves.
While I do not agree with the trend of the court decisions and such intimidation tactics, they do exist and effect what is allowed to be taught in public schools and state universities.
Since the naturalistic origin of life is a theory, and since pure science encourages critical analysis of postulated theories, there should still be opportunities to enable public schools and universities to encourage students to, at least, test and critically examine the evidence used to support, contradict and challenge any scientific theory. And even if intelligent design is not specifically discussed, there is no legitimate reason that weaknesses and evidentiary gaps in naturalistic life origin theory can’t be discussed.
The majority view is not always the best or true view. The majority of scientists have in the past, at times, been in error in certain matters, and one must not assume that the present majority are infallible. Students should have the right to hear evidence and analysis which tends contradict the conclusions that life evolved from non-life and then morphed into more complex life forms. To refuse to allow criticism effectively amounts to state-imposed indoctrination.
Court ordered censorship, as well as intimidation and harassment will not stop the increasing interest in intelligent design. And in my opinion, Darwinists who resort to such tactics to thwart discussion of a scientific idea (even though it has religious implications), are advocating dogmatism, authoritarianism, and not true science which promotes debate and criticism of unperfected theories such as naturalistic origins of life and exploration of alternative theories.
© 2014 by Matthew B. Tozer Esq. All rights reserved.