Discovery Institute at my Campus
Posted on: June 11, 2007 - 7:59pm
Offline
Discovery Institute at my Campus
I wish to speak of my interesting weekend. I know many of you have heard about the Discovery Institute coming to SMU to lecture on “Intelligent” design. I went and here is my story.
It really began on April 12th (Thursday) when William Dempski (an ID advocate) had his luncheon at Umphrey Lee Ballroom. My former logic professor told me that this luncheon was invitation only but I was in luck as he had an invitation. He made a few calls and I thought to myself “well at least it’s free food.” I soon discovered that William Dempski was invited by the Dallas Christian Leadership. I felt out of place, considering I was wearing a shirt with a massive picture of Charles Darwin printed on it (but luckily I had a sweatshirt). In any case, I was sat down at one of the side tables and it started out as usual as these sorts of events: a prayer. I sat quietly listened thoughtfully at William Dempski’s poor arguments, his misrepresentation of Darwinian evolution, and his appeal to emotion that ID advocates are being “persecuted”. I soon discovered that the person left of me was a lawyer (somehow affiliated with SMU) and he began talking to me about intelligent design, science, and the legal disputes behind it (he must have seen my shirt). He asked what my major was and I told him philosophy major, where as he thought he could level with me and discuss these “scientific” arguments philosophically. Perhaps I should have also revealed that I am a physics and mathematics major and well in tuned with the scientific process and community. In any case, I left feeling a little annoyed since he seemed to have thought that I was acting out of ignorance and making judgment calls without really understanding “truth” which he so loosely threw around. I knew the “Darwin vs. Design” conference began tomorrow at McFarlin and I thought, since no science professor planned on debating the Discovery Institute if I may fill that 15 minute slot with a speech to the public, talking about the history of Intelligent Design (such as the Dover Area School District trial). I will spare the email dialogue but basically the last email ended with me saying to the event coordinator ‘Well that is strange because I believe the reporter from the Dallas Morning news revealed that the Q&A session will be pre-screened. If this is true, I wonder how is it even possible to “really stick it to the speakers” if they are able to dodge the more important questions. It is not just the faculty who believe that the conference should have been removed from this campus but the students as well so I as a student (and I should say at least some what educated one) should be completely adequate to represent this opinion.’ Needless to say she didn’t answer back. I wore my Darwin shirt on Friday holding a copy of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in my hand as a quiet protestor (since I knew they wouldn’t allow me on stage anyways). There were also some other SMU students who were protesting with large signs that really asked the harder questions but they read only one and dodged the question completely. The arguments were so bad it was embarrassing, full of personal anecdotes and no real scientific evidence. I felt it was my duty to be there again tomorrow since sadly, some of my friends actually believed these arguments. I returned on Saturday, this time wearing a black suit, a white shirt, and a black tie, to suggest that something very precious to me has died here. Maybe it was science, or maybe it was reason, or quite possibly my faith in humanity. I sat in for the first lecture: once again terrible arguments. I looked at the audience, many of them taking notes as if to suggest there was something worth writing down. The first speaker ended (Jay Richards) and I realized that before I have an aneurism, I should probably sit the second lecture out, collecting my thoughts and quietly protesting, once again with Origin of the Species in my hand. I chit chatted with an officer just outside the auditorium. She was very kind and understood my reasons behind my quiet protest but perhaps she didn’t quite understand why this is a controversy. Another person came up to me and he began lecturing me on these arguments such as the finiteness of the Universe and the solar system, things that had really nothing to do with evolutionary theory and loosely connected the arguments. Perhaps I should have told him about the Dover Area School District hearing and about how Michael Behe confessed that there was no evidence for Intelligent Design and that his definition of science would include astrology (i.e. horoscopes). He suggested that I buy a book and “look this stuff for yourself”. Apparently he was just some volunteer there and has “ADD and reads articles here and there”. There was a Q&A box and I thought I should at least put a question in it. But as I wrote down a question, I looked into the box and read another’s comment. This person said that he or she was a schoolteacher and he or she was wondering how they could help with the ID movement and how they could introduce it in public school curriculum. Absolutely horrific. It was around noon so I figured I should go eat something and I crossed the street to go to a burger place. I sat quietly, ate quietly, still with Origin of the Species in my hand, in the hopes that perhaps maybe one would ask what it’s about. Apparently there was a lunch break for the conference around the same time and a rush of people filled the place, many of them hyped about ID. I overheard some of them, once again bad logic, poor arguments, ad ignorantiam, ad verecundiam, ignoratio elenchi. I needed to leave. I don’t know why I was compelled to go back to the conference and listen to speakers after lunch but I felt a personal duty towards my friends to at least attend. As I waited outside the auditorium, an old man approached me and said that I looked like the sculpture of the thinker. I was flattered since it was one of my favorite sculptures. Perhaps this man had something interesting to say. Unfortunately by his arguments, I assumed that this man was senile and did not have a point to many of his arguments. He told me about how science always has an agenda (his example was Viagra, I won’t go there) and that he was a politician and he always went with the people. He told me that history is always written by the victor but to his credibility I agreed. But then he said something to me that was very strange, something that any other day I would have blown it off as racist but this day was different. He mentioned the a-bomb and I thought that was a rather strange example to use but he was trying to justify using it in WWII. I guess he saw that I was an Asian and so it would be a toss up between a chinamen and a jap. I told him that I was Japanese in which he remarked, “Maybe that’s why I’m telling you”. I explained to him the pictures of the dead that I saw as a child, the pictures of the incinerated, the pictures of the scorched. What was eerie is that while I was telling him this, he was smiling, as if to suggest that he came up with an argument against it. I had seen the devil with my eyes and he has the smile of Uncle Sam. I told him that he was the most disgusting person that I have ever met and I left. I couldn’t stay there. I needed air and I needed to bawl for my country, both of them. I realized that in some strange way, all of this was connected. That some how the a-bomb, American history, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, Intelligent Design, evangelism, WMD, Iraq, WWII, Vietnam, racism, sexism, neo-imperialism were all connected in some strange subtle fabric in the American zeitgeist and we were all part of it. My professors, the ID advocates, the public, the schoolteacher, the protestors, the police officer, my friends, myself were all strung in this tightly woven fabric, those of us spun through the fabric, those of us violently resisting this veil, and those of us profiting from this blindfold. I saw American academia fall before my eyes, the future, the past, the present. The books of the shoulders of great giants we used to stand upon quietly shelved away, the inability to trust the word of our fellow man on this pale blue dot, the destruction of public discourse and freedom in the name of discourse and freedom. “Veritas Vos Liberabit” Those words used to mean something to me, something precious, something wonderful but something died that day: science, reason, trust, truth, hope. I lost faith in humanity and that was my interesting weekend.- Login to post comments
This is a very sobering story, Molesniper. It points out again the way that Discovery is working to sway popular opinion in their direction through the spreading of misinformation, rather than engaging in legitimate scientific research. Also the fact that they're at SMU shows that they're seeking out the places where opposition is weak and they can have the most influence. The scariest part of this story is the question from the local teacher about bringing ID into their classrooms.
But at the same time don't be discouraged. I lived in Texas too and you can get a very distorted view of how much influence these guys actually have. When you move out toward the coasts, you get a better perspective on how many people still think that these ID guys are a bunch of wingnuts.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Wow, molesniper! This is an amazing story. I do not know much about the ID movement, but I feel better knowing that you and others around here do understand it and are willing to try to educate people about the wrongness of it. Sometimes I weep for the future of this country. Thank you for sharing this.
I studied education at university. I'm qualified to teach mathematics and science. My dream was to make a difference, to give kids the skills and drive to think for themselves and see through nonsense like creationism. I quit teaching after 2 years because it turned out to be 90% croud control, but that's not relevant to my point.
There were 2 girls in my education units (we studied a few ed units but most of our study was actually in the departments for the subjects we intended to teach (Mathematics and Physics for me). These girls were both specialising in biology (meaning they had to study real university level biology up to final (3rd) year level) but it was obvious that they had gone into teaching with one purpose - bringing creationism into the classroom. They often spouted the usual AIG arguments but the worst was in micro-teaching (we had to prepare and present a 10-minute lesson each week) they tried to debunk evolution while teaching it, or related topics, and did it under the guise of encouraging critical thinking.
I've never been as mad at anyone quite so much as when I had to sit through their presentations. Not only do they have no grasp of science, but they must have gone to great lengths to continue to misunderstand it why studying excatly the subject that should show them they were wrong. And the whole purpose of their study was simply to gain the right to ruin other people's understanding of science.
arrrrgh!
If anyone needs me I'll be in the angry-dome.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!