The comments are worth considering. Nick Matzke commented that:
No, I don't think that's the major thing that is bugging the profs. The major issue bugging them is (1) this is really an apologetics revival meeting for a specific form of conservative Christianity, but (2) it is disguised as a scientific "conference", as if SMU was hosting a scientific conference on intelligent design like SMU might host some other scientific meeting.Nick has a real active imagination. The design inference, in his mind, is a huge conspiracy posed to vault a “specific form of conservative Christianity” onto our poor unexpecting students. It's all part of a huge brain washing indoctrination attempt. Good grief.
I think you could expect a similar reaction if e.g. a conservative Mormon group disguised their apologetics meetings as "scientific conference" on "archaeology of North America."
Mike Gene and Krauze set him straight though...
Mike states that:
Lot's of things bug me. But I have never thought that justification for advocating censorship.Krauze brings up a good point:
Nick, do you support free speech?
Would you expect a similar reaction if a scientist used the celebration of science and evolution as a pretext to tell the audience that God didn't exist and that human free will is nonexistent?”No telling what all was said at those big Darwin Day events on campuses throughout the country.
But, then that’s a whole different deal apparently.
Nick seems to be so very opposed to ID and certain forms of religion. I wonder what religion he is affiliated with.