Question by Dr Abbey: What do you think about this disclaimer on Lehigh University’s Website?
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.”
While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

if you don’t want to read it, don’t bother answering and asking me “what does this have to do with R&S?

Best answer:

Answer by Emmy [Redux]
Well, I love it. They respect his freedom to endorse whatever he wants, while kindly telling him the truth: his theory has no basis in science.

I think it’s an excellent compromise. Just because you respect someone’s right to believe something doesn’t mean you have to pretend that belief is scientific in any way.

Melting Media- as a Pennsylvanian, I love Dover for keeping the rest of us looking respectable.

Give your answer to this question below!

2 thoughts on “What do you think about this disclaimer on Lehigh University’s Website?”

  1. Behe got his ID butt kicked at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Trial of 2005, where he was forced to admit on the witness stand that ID is as scientific as astrology. Hoo!

    Otherwise, in the class, he actually is a very good professor. All of his unscientific work, religiously based, is an appeal to the public because he knows better than to try to present his junk for peer review. It’s already been falsified by both scientists and engineering students.

Leave a Reply

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