Have you spoken against intelligent design, or other dangerous superstition, today?

Imagine you live in Dallas, Texas, where it is generally assumed that one is Christian and that one attends church on Sunday, and Wednesday (so much so that school activities are not scheduled Wednesdays, because everyone is expected to be at church). Imagine that you teach science at a major Christian-affiliated institution in Dallas.

Now imagine that your institution is the site of a major conference extolling the virtues of superstition, specifically against a scientific theory that is the foundation and main supports for much of your work. Do you hunker down and hope no one notices, or do you speak up for science? Blog against theocracy logo, Statute of Liberty

20 professors at Southern Methodist University (SMU) signed an article on the opposite-editorial page of the Dallas Morning News, yesterday, calling out intelligent design and its advocates. (I mentioned it in this post, here.) They will most likely take a stand that there is no reason to “debate” intelligent design advocates, since the debate venue is stacked, the debate audience is stacked, and that intelligent design has not paid its dues to be admitted to the college of the sciences.

But I wish they would take a further stand: I wish the Christians among them would call on the advocates of intelligent design to repent, to stop asking people to turn away from science, to stop spreading false stories about science, to stop making false claims. Our nation, the U.S., is held together by a collection of rights protected by a written constitution which includes a defense of any resident’s right to believe in the supernatural, but also includes a ban on the government’s or anyone else’s insisting that others believe that way. In short, our secular, non-theocratic government is what protects the scientists in their views, as if the truth were not enough.

Ironically, however, it is not the scientists who should need that protection. It is the advocates of intelligent design who argue a position that, in my view, conflicts with the teachings of the Methodist Church, with which SMU is affiliated, as stated here:


The universe, known and unknown, is the creation of God and is due the respect we are called to give the earth.

Science and Technology

We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. We recognize technology as a legitimate use of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world.

In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church – 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House.

Creationism, or any belief contrary to evolution, is not part of the Methodist faith. That critics of evolution are allowed to gather on the campus of SMU is evidence of the tolerance advocated by Methodism, and the respect for a freedom of speech unprotected by the Constitution, on the part of the officials of SMU. It is not the scientists who come heretic to the meeting. Our strong, traditional views against theocracy allow even foolish, non-rational views to be heard.

Blogging Against Theocracy: This is one of several dozen blog postings across the web defending religious freedom against theocracy, over Easter weekend. I picked the logo of the Statue of Liberty, with her torch of freedom replaced by a cross, because it symbolizes to me that dangerous tendency of some, often well-intentioned Christians to argue that the torches of liberty, especially education and free information, should be bent towards religious indoctrination. There is no more powerful image that Liberty putting out and putting down the torch of liberty, and taking up a cross upon which people and ideas were to be put to death. Thanks to Pharyngula and P.Z. Myers for the heads up.

9 Responses to Have you spoken against intelligent design, or other dangerous superstition, today?

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Thanks for the tip, Mike – as you can see, I d e t r o r c e is history.


  2. Mike says:

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

    And even more interestingly, I had the exact same comment on my blog here.

    Semi-benign spam?


  3. […] (Canada)Immoral LogicPambolitaRational RevolutionDeleted ItemsBratfinkReligious Right WatchIseBrandMillard Fillmore’s BathtubTimeline of Theocracy (at T2A)HypnocritesProgressiveUThe Skeptical AlchemistDark ChristianityThe […]


  4. […] Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub: “They will most likely take a stand that there is no reason to “debate” intelligent […]


  5. […] doubt itXarkAbnormal InterestsTengrain (at MPS)Deleted ItemsBratfinkReligious Right WatchIseBrandMillard Fillmore’s BathtubTimeline of Theocracy (at T2A)HypnocritesProgressiveUThe Skeptical AlchemistDark ChristianityThe […]


  6. Ed Darrell says:

    I made a comment at PZ’s place — he’s dead on.

    And, if I can find time tonight, I may make more comments here.


  7. bernarda says:

    PZ of Pharyngula has a good comment on scientists as communicators.


    As he says, scientists are good communicators, it is just that the mass media doesn’t have time for them.


  8. Thank you, Ed, for the post. I keep pointing out in various places — recently on DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY, which I have been honored to be invited to join — that despite the noice IDers make, they are a minority of believers. The Catholic Church, Anglicans, Unitarians, most ‘main-stream’ Protestant denominations, and most Jews — even including many Orthodox — all accept evolution and do not take Genesis literally.

    I also enjoy pointing out that, were ID ever to prove its main thesis, that the Universe was created, this says NOTHING about whether their particular candidate for the job actually did it. The best it could demonstrate was that there was a Deistic Creator, but that is a long way from proving a Theistic one, and particularly that the God of the Bible (or Qur’an, or Avesta) deserves credit. It’s a big Universe out there.


  9. Dave says:

    Thanks for the information about Blog Against Theocracy.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: