Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Religion & Law

: Thoughts in a Haystack

Visions of Discovery

By John Pieret

ADVERTISEMENTS

You've probably heard about the state legislator from Oklahoma who is bucking to get on Ed Brayton's list of stupidest in the nation by filing a resolution stating that:

... the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

That's strange and stupid but the funny part is this:

Dawkins is a staunch supporter of Darwinian evolution and is critical of alternative theories, said Rob Crowther, director of communications at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that funds research into non-Darwinian concepts like intelligent design.

"From our point of view, Richard Dawkins is a militant Darwin defender, overly dogmatic," Crowther said. "He's often been critical of intelligent design."
"We're all for the freedom of Richard Dawkins to speak," said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. "Where is a similar high-profile person debating him?"

First of all, what right does the DI have to demand a debate? There's nothing in the Constitution about freedom of speech depending on agreeing to a debate. In any case, who does the DI have that is as high-profile as Richard Dawkins? This guy is, rightly or wrongly, one of the most famous scientists in the world. As a science populizer, there is no one better, at least since the departure of Stephen Jay Gould, and from what I've seen, he is a good speaker. Would they really want comparisons made between the charisma of Dawkins and what a Michael Behe or William Dembski or Dr. Michael ("I am a neurosurgeon") Egnor would bring to the table? By the way, weren't Casey Luskin and John West just at the University of Oklahoma? I guess that means the DI concedes that they aren't high-profile (much less capable) enough to counter Dawkins' appearance.

Once again the DI crew is displaying delusions of competence.
.

Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on March 06, 2009 (boomark / email).