"You think this is a "free speech" issue? No one is preventing these people from hiring a hall and seeing if they can attract an audience for their creationist--excuse me, ID-ist--ideas. A university, on the other hand, has no obligation to allow any deranged fantasy to present itself as "science". Free thought in academia exists between parties who can show at least some empirical backing for their ideas, which permits them to be debated as genuinely opposing notions.
Should a university permit its faculty to promulgate "eugenics"? "Racial purity"? Should they continue to host a professor who teaches that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is fact?"
I don't know should they? Has anyone here actually looked at Darwin's work? Doesn't Darwin's theory claim white racial supremacy over black people? If they are so pro-Darwin, shouldn't they be advocating eugenics?
What you have presented is pointless... these issues are far from the discussion at hand. I return your comment back to you: "don't blur the issue with high-minded talk of" eugenics and racial issues. They are straw-man arguments trying to mislead from the point at hand. Note my third point below regarding theistic evolution and a quote by Pope John Paul II one of the leading voices against eugenics, racial purity, and The Protocol.
At least see the doc-movie before you criticize me to death. The issue of free-speech is one of the arguments they are making, and its one that has a lot of support behind it considering some of the ways in which these professors have been treated and blackballed.
If you have ever been involved in academic publishing, "hiring a hall" has validity in the scientific community. In order to even be considered by anyone as something worth while to read it has to be peer-reviewed and published in a respectable journal. The articles which have earned these academicians their early retirement often were peer-reviewed and accepted for publication.
Also if you have ever done empirical research then you understand what a p value is, what Type I and Type II errors are, and the statistical probability accepted by most researchers in order to declare something "true."
The article that the Smithsonian fired the editor and blackballed the author over in essence argued that according to the rules of Empiricism and the Scientific Method, the probability for Darwinian Evolutionary design's theory that the inorganic became organic has a probability factor that is over and over again many times smaller than is acceptable by Science. If it were anything else, Science would say that the probability for it to be true is so incredibly small that it could never happen. Other articles have examined the data and have noted that the rate of change necessary for that primordial organism to become a chain of human DNA is of a rate that is statistically improbable; it is faster than is recognizable in comparing changes in humanoid skeletal dna to our skeletal DNA. Further if that rate of change between those skeletal DNAs is followed, it places the creation of life before the beginning of the universe.
In the movie... Richard Dawkins himself says that there is a possibility for intellegent design by some alien species.
ID simply means that there is some intelligent designer at work, be they aliens or a divine being, it doesn't matter.... just that there is some sort of designer. Get your understanding of creationism and ID right. They are two different things... one relies on a deity, the other on a designer.
As if you Christians were persecuted or something. You're the least persecuted people in this country, and you have a zillion platforms for your "ideas".
1: Don't assume I'm a Christian, although most Christians right now would argue that they are heavily persecuted by the media and leftist groups including and probably most heavily by the ACLU. Why do you assume Christianity, do you have a prejudice against them?
2: ID is a theory that is supported by multiple belief systems outside Christianity and those who aren't religious at all, don't blame it all on Christianity.
3: Contrary to your concepts of Creationism and ID as being one and the same... there is also third standpoint commonly called 'theistic evolution' that is supported by religious leaders such as the late Pope John Paul II who said that "new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis" in an address to the Pontifical Academy for the sciences. This theory argues for general understanding of evolution and natural selection (although against the single origin theory) provided that the human soul did not 'evolve' but was given by a deity.
Ahh... the evolutionary debate... so much fun... just like playing the devil's advocate.