Advanced Search

It's 1984 in the Academy

By
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Wed, May. 07 2008 11:19 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

Freedom of speech and inquiry have long been cherished principles in America. They are especially important in the world of academia where they have been viewed as the basis of "academic freedom." For years scholars have advanced the proposition that academic freedom is essential to the advancement of knowledge. Only by challenging the prevailing orthodoxy, they maintained, could one open up new vistas of learning and truth.

Enlarge this Image
Ken Connor

In our postmodern world, however, many scholars are learning the hard way that "academic freedom" has become an Orwellian term meaning "academic tyranny." Today, in the academy, one is free only to advance notions that are consonant with the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. Challenges to that orthodoxy are often met with denials of tenure, refusals to renew contracts, or expulsion.

Nowhere is this more evident than when the notion of Darwinian Evolution is questioned. And nowhere are the limitations of academic freedom more in evidence than in the debate over Intelligent Design. In his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles the fate of scholars who dared to proffer the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) as an explanation for the origin of life. Their efforts were rebuffed with Gestapo-like tactics carried out by the politically correct police who brooked no challenges to Charles Darwin's theories. The heterodox were deemed unworthy of membership in the academy and were expelled. Tenure was denied and their contracts were not renewed. Challenges to the existing "academic consensus" are simply not allowed. Thus, a scholar's freedom of inquiry has been transmogrified to freedom from inquiry.

History is replete, however, with great advances made by scholars who challenged the existing "academic consensus." Names like Galileo and Kepler and Einstein come to mind. Progress, after all, often requires thinking outside the box.

Stein's documentary contains interviews with some of the world's leading atheists who are also proponents of Darwin's theories. Of course, they do not acknowledge Darwinism to be merely a theory; to them it is settled science. Yet their notions of the origin of life can hardly be called "scientific." Michael Ruse posits in the film that life on earth evolved on the backs of crystals and Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, hypothesizes that life was planted on earth through space aliens. Men such as these are deemed "leading lights" in the academic community, but Stein's cross-examination makes them appear to be rather "dim bulbs." Intelligent Design seems eminently plausible compared to the ravings of these scientists who appear educated beyond their intelligence.

In Expelled, Ben Stein also interviews Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE's mission is "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools," and Dr. Scott is the self-appointed Chief of the Politically Correct Thought Police. Although a putative proponent of academic freedom, she maintains that there is no room for discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom. She comes across as Darwin's Eva Braun in the film.

Instead of encouraging free inquiry, the scientists interviewed in the documentary mock ID as "pseudo-science" or "religion masquerading as science." These barbs are based on their assumption that the notion that God (or a designer) created life somehow contradicts rational thought. They argue that ID is based on belief—not rational science—but they neglect to mention that their theories on the origin of life are also based on an element of belief. Indeed, the acceptance of any theory of origins necessitates belief (or faith) in that theory.

The NCSE's dogmatic dismissal of alternative theories of our origin in an attempt to preserve "science standards" smacks of the censorship Galileo suffered at the hands of the Church when he defended the theory that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system. Perhaps most telling is Dr. Scott's claim that the NCSE will not rest until the last brushfires of controversy over evolution are put out. These efforts to extinguish controversy and to mute dissenting voices are antithetical to traditional notions of academic freedom. But that doesn't bother the scholars who are interviewed in the film. In the academy, it's 1984 and, in their world, freedom is tyranny.
___________________________________________________

Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case. Connor was formally President of the Family Research Council, Chairman of the Board of CareNet, and Vice Chairman of Americans United for Life. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, go to www.ajustsociety.org. Your feedback is welcome; please email info@ajustsociety.org.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
steveh20
  • Sun May 11, 2008 11:23 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
You as well as me or anyone else is free to come up with theories to explain the known facts.

Thats true, but some will definately be wrong and some right and that is where you and I differ, some facts are established, I freely admit that in some areas of science I amn ot a relativist like you.

Thank you for enquiring about my past, its not that I don't mind talking to people about it, its just I don't talk about such persoanl journeys over the net for all to read.

Regards

Steve
star2
  • Sun May 11, 2008 11:06 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
steveh20

You as well as me or anyone else is free to come up with theories to explain the known facts. Some models are better than others. I personally believe that some but not all the models that YEC's come up with explain the facts better than any of the other non-creation (evolution) or hybrid creation (ID/thiestic evolution) models come up with. You no doubt disagree. And their are others who are hybrid-creationists that disagree with you and me. That is your right and that is their right.

I was just wondering why you were first a YEC and then became an evolutionist. I guess you don't really want to go into the evolution of your thought processes, so I'll just drop it.

Peace.
steveh20
  • Sun May 11, 2008 10:35 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
Star
" We are each entitled to our own interpretation of the facts."
Thats incorrect in science, geology does not accept the interpretation that the Earth shows evidence of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago. You may be a relativist when it comes to this sort of thing but I am not. I will say one thing though, before I changed my position I to used to say the same thing to others, so I understand where you are coming from.
Regards
Steve
star2
  • Sun May 11, 2008 4:27 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
steveh20

No problem with what you believe, I disagree with your explanation of why things are the way they are. I am a YEC. We are each entitled to our own interpretation of the facts.

Why did you start out a YEC? Was it from your religious training? When did you begin to become an 'evolutionist'? Did you change when you were in college studying the evolutionary explanations to the origins of the universe and all that is in it? Did it affect your belief in God?

I am not attacking you. I am just curious.
steveh20
  • Sun May 11, 2008 3:23 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Star

No problem with your statement "Scientists have found petrified trees that extend through more than one strata. That cannot be explained by evolutionary means" that can be explained as
1.Trees are buried and fossislised
2.Further deposition occurs
3.Erosion occurs to the beds resulting in petrified forest being partially revealed
4.Erosion ceases and depostion occurs again, petrified forest crosses diffrent strata
No problem there then, the interesting thing is that if a flood buried them then they would be buried in one go(as you stated) and would not coss strata (as you state), odd that, don't you think? But its not my problem.

I changed because I followed my conscience and what I learnt about the world about me would not let me do anything else. Living with a clean conscience is one of the best things in life.

Regards

Steve
star2
  • Sun May 11, 2008 2:18 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
steveh20

Scientists have found petrified trees that extend through more than one strata. That cannot be explained by evolutionary means. Only the great world wide flood as described in Genesis can explain those findings. At this point I am not interested in debating that fact with you.

However, I am interested in why you were at one time a YEC but now you are an evolutionist. Why were you a YEC to begin with and why did you change?
steveh20
  • Sun May 11, 2008 12:55 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Dear Star
As a geaolgy student with a university in England (I actually do it rather than just reading about it in books or on web sites) there is no problem with fossilised trees. Reasonably rapid burial be it gently or violently will produce these results. I fail to see what the problem is, it certainly is not for geology. This is the point I'm making, people ask (be it haphazardly) with out understanding the basics of the discipline. So to summarise, fossilised trees in found in strata (what else would they be in?) are not a problem ,if they are to some people thats because they don't understand the subject. Two other points are, who says all strata take millions of years to form ceratinly not geologists who know their stuff and a question for you, we only find certain trees in certain strata, a flood would not produce such order, how's that?.
Kind regards
Steve
star2
  • Sun May 11, 2008 12:33 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
steveh20

JC's question to Paul Burnett about petrified trees upright, upside down and etc. being found in all the different stratas that evolutionists say took millions of years to form is not 'gobbidigook' as you say.

Scientists have found these trees. Do a google search on it and you will see that. Evolution cannot explain these petrified trees. However, a world wide flood as described in God's Word in the book of Genesis can.

JC, I believe, was only trying to get Paul Burnett to look at the facts and try to explain the findings according to evolution. Of course, evolution cannot which I believe was JC's point.
steveh20
  • Sun May 11, 2008 3:11 am
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
Hello Slacker

I don't see a question to actually answer all I read is a load of gobbidigook (technical term) about trees in strata, my answer is no "good comeback" but an honest apprisal of what they need to do to help them maybe ask a more pertinant question.
Kind regards
Steve
Slacker
  • Sun May 11, 2008 12:00 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
To Steve...

Are you going to answer his question or are you going to just leave it at "he needs to go to a library". If you are, all i have to say is "good comeback"....
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here