How to Teach Intelligent Design, SMU Style: “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap”

Another example of how the Darwinists debate.

From Casey Luskin and

“This past spring, anti-ID faculty at Southern Methodist University (SMU) refused to engage in a debate over intelligent design. Now that Discovery Institute’s activities on the SMU campus are over, some of these faculty are sponsoring a course entitled “The Scientific Method – Critical and Creative Thinking (Debunking Pseudoscience).” The course has a clear bias against ID, as the course website has a page devoted to ID titled “(Un)Intelligent Design,” which states, “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap.” They remain true to their promise to offer a one-sided and biased presentation: Their listing of course readings on ID lacks a single article that is friendly towards ID! The readings list, for what they call, “Intelligent Design (a.k.a Creationism version 2.0),” begins by citing to the ID entry from the “Skeptic’s Dictionary,” then it cites 8 Wikipedia articles, 3 NCSE articles, a CSICOP page on ID, 4 Talk Origins pages, and then another 15 or so other articles, ALL OF WHICH OPPOSE ID (including one YouTube video entitled “Evolution for ID-iots”). There is not a single article by an ID-proponent to balance out the 3 dozen or so articles that they list in this “Intelligent Design” section.

The course has a lecture against ID to be taught by Dr. John Wise, a noted ID critic at SMU who was vocal in speaking out against ID during Discovery Institute’s SMU conference this past spring. In his “(Un)intelligent Design” lecture notes, Dr. Wise states, “If we have evolution, we no longer need a Creator to create each and every species. Darwinism is dangerous because it infers that God did not directly and purposefully create us. It simply states that we evolved.”

The course’s page on ID also lists some correspondence regarding Discovery Institute’s SMU conference on ID earlier this year. They title one article on the “Darwin vs. Design” readings list a “rant,” and they post it under a URL with the word “IDiot” in the title. The “rant” is actually a letter to the editor, and the person they call the “IDiot” who wrote it is me. I wrote to the SMU Daily after John Wise engaged in extensive personal attacks against Discovery Institute’s Anika Smith and SMU law student Sarah Levy. The course author comments in regards to my so-called “rant,” “When your argument is absolutely devoid of science, attack John Wise.” Such projections are an unfortunate way of responding to my letter: I did not accuse Dr. Wise of any moral wrongdoing, but merely observed that Dr. Wise engaged in precisely the tactic he now accuses me of doing. As I wrote, “It’s disheartening (and revealing) when people have to demonize their opponents in order to argue against them … continuing for the entirety of his response to supply nothing more than a string of misdirected or misinformed ad hominem attacks.” Again, I did not demonize Dr. Wise, and in fact my letter is devoid of personal attacks, and rather is devoted to defending Discovery Institute’s Anika Smith and an SMU law student from Dr. Wise’s personal attacks against them. I wrote, “Does Dr. Wise have anything to say that is both accurate and rises above personal attacks?”

To read more clcik here.


3 Responses to How to Teach Intelligent Design, SMU Style: “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap”

  1. Matt says:

    Why would they enter a debate into ID? ID simply isn’t science and if you decide to allow ID in then you’d also have to allow in every other ‘creation’ myth/theory/story/tale/yarn/whatever. And there are so many of those, that no University Course … or even human life span … would be long enough to cover them all.

    Norse Creation 101: The World Ash Tree.

  2. Chris says:


    Thanks for the comment. How do you define science? How is Darwinism science? Why is Intelligent Design not science?


  3. Matt says:

    Please, I know this has been explained to you before.

    ID fails at being science simply because it doesn’t use the scientific method as a basis for it’s conclusion (it formed a conclusion then looked for evidence to support it, instead of the other way around) and also does not provide a testable mechanism for the process it supports.

    Need more? Behe, possibly IDs leading ‘scientific’ proponent, was forced to admit that if ID was to be considered science then the term science would have to be relaxed to such a degree that it would then also have to accept such crackpot things as astrology (you know, the zodiac).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: