Didn’t colleges used to encourage independent thought?

Apparently that was only for Liberal ideas. See Stomping out independent thought, Campus USA.

The IDEA club organizers at some universities complain that their activities are severely discouraged by those in authority, presumably so no student even has a chance of being “infected” with such subversive ideas. One leader, at a uiversity in California told me, “Within a year the cimate became very hostile to ID. The trouble started when a professor complained to administrators about our meetings. At the time the resistance from administration started, I was arranging for pro-ID scholars to present at our campus. After monies were already allocated for speakers and travel costs, our IDEA Club was told by administrators that we were not allowed to publicize our events where pro-ID speakers would be presenting. Pressure from administrators suffocated the IDEA Club within the same academic year … Any given professor that ignorantly speaks against ID may be the one who will give me a shot at an internship or research project. Starting an IDEA Club on any campus would be academic and professional suicide.”

Darwinists sure are thin-skinned. It makes you wonder if they lack confidence in their views and are just a bunch of bullies.

As a Christian, I realize that all other worldviews are false. But I don’t do anything to suppress their speech. I welcome examination of the facts. Too bad the allegedly pro-science types don’t do the same.

9 thoughts on “Didn’t colleges used to encourage independent thought?”

  1. “But I don’t do anything to suppress their speech.”

    Coming from a Christian, that line is hilarious.


    1. I’m not sure why you find it hilarious, unless it is because you’ve lived in Stereotype Land so long. I’ve written almost 2,400 posts. Please read them all and then highlight the parts where I advocate suppressing free speech. I’ll wait here.


    2. I’m sure you just expect us to know what in the hell you’re talking about, like it’s just a big wink wink nudge nudge.

      No, go on. Explain. Oh, and the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial doesn’t count…that turned out to be a farce.


  2. Good post, Neil. While proponents of evolution will hem and haw about how mean and censorious their detractors are, producing propaganda such as “Inherit the Wind” to this effect, they are caught red handed doing the very same thing they accuse their adversaries of.


  3. Not surprising that the first comment was from a non-Christian (I’m assuming Atheist)

    I find that they are more about insults than discussion. (at least the ones that I’ve talked to have been like that.)


  4. Reminds y’all of the debate about manmade global warming, doesn’t it?

    “Question our orthodoxy? You’re anti-science! We’ll destroy your career.”


  5. It is not that hard to see why closed-minded intellectuals want to keep out ID proponents. They might have to start defending their ideas and their intellects might turn out to be something like the emperor’s new clothes.

    If that is not true, why not allow open discussion and dazzle us with their brilliance and the strength of their case.


  6. I am reminded of The Jesus Seminar which started with some critical assumptions behind their methodology. They wanted to show a view of the historical view of Jesus without any supernatural attributes. If you take away the miracles, what was left? Who was the historical Jesus?

    So it is with evolutionary theory. If you take God out of the picture, what is left as far as theory? The evidence continues to grow to show intelligence behind the design but based upon their starting point assumption, any evidence requiring the existence of God can never be considered. They must always come up with a different theory that does not require God.

    However, I believe they still teach Occam’s razor at colleges which does expose just how many contortions evolutionists have to make in order to keep God out of their theories. I don’t disagree with their conclusions, I disagree with their starting point assumptions. and I think others increasingly are seeing the complexity of explanations for how evolution happened without ID are becoming harder and harder to justify when you apply Occam’s razor to determine who owns the burden of proof.

    Scientific methodology always must exclude God since it requires repeatable experiments which must be done without any supernatural help. But i think God is revealed by the increasing complexity of explanations of how evolution happened without God. When you have to fli a coin a hundred times and it must come up head’s every time for your theory to work, intelligence behind the design does become a simpler explanation despite the fact the starting point assumptions do not allow it.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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