Last week an official letter was sent by the ACLU and others to leaders in the Obama administration protesting the denial of academic freedom for certain persons seeking admission into the United States. The apparent reason for denial of these persons’ visas was outspoken ideological differences with our government. I am not here concerned with whether these people should be allowed into the United States nor do I necessarily take issue with the missions and approaches of all the organizations that signed the letter. I would however, like to recommend that the ACLU read again this letter that they have posted on their website the next time they wish to object to a teacher who simply presents ideological or scientific criticisms to Darwinian evolution theory. To make it easier for them, I have copied the entire text below, highlighting phrases and whole sentences that could as easily fit the
mistreatment of Darwin critics; whom apparently the ACLU finds more threatening to our civil liberties than political dissidents.
As far as I can tell none of these people are advocates of either failed science (like creationism) or pseudoscience (like ID). It seems that they have been banned due to their opinions about politics. That’s regrettable, but this is not analogous to situations where the ACLU takes up the battle to keep failed science and pseudoscience out of science classrooms.
The difference between politics and science is that opinions are a standard currency in politics, but in science you have to deal with facts. It’s getting tiresome to repeat this, but science has shown that neither phlogiston, nor geocentrism, nor astrology, nor creationism/ID are consistent with known facts.
If you have new facts, let’s hear ‘em. If you still just have opinions, don’t call it science. And please, please, please don’t argue that it should be taught in science classes in public schools!
Hey there Dave, you again?
– It’s getting tiresome to repeat this too, but I’m afraid ID hasn’t been shown to be “failed science and pseudoscience”. It’s only been declared to be so (and by those with a clear motive and agenda) which is by no means the same thing.
Now, brace yourself — yes of course the controversy should most definitely be taught. What could be a better way of sharpening the minds of the rising generation? If you’re right about it, you have nothing to fear. Even if you’re wrong you have nothing to fear except the chance to replace error with truth.
No controversy? Don’t be absurd. What else makes the blogosphere go round?