Check out this article from Evolution News.
Excerpt:
We were delighted to discover that students at the University of Arizona are getting a well-rounded education. “Evolution, Intelligent Design Face Off at Humanities Panel,” reports the Arizona Daily Wildcat. Hey great, finally a serious academic institution is taking the time to make sure kids hear both sides of the evolution debate! Reading down the article we noticed only a couple of things they might have been done differently and better.
The panel at UA included an evolutionary biologist and two religious studies profs, but no one actually representing the ID side. Only ID critics were allowed to participate. Well, that is disappointing. It’s like staging a “debate” between the Democratic and Republican contenders for a particular public office but inviting only the Democratic candidate, joined on stage by his campaign manager and chief of staff.
Also, no one on the panel even seemed to know what intelligent design means.
[…]Professor Karen Seat confused ID with Young Earth Creationism, explaining to students and colleagues that it was all about a defense of “the traditional, literal meaning of the Bible.”
[…]Professor Lucas Mix, who’s an ordained Episcopal priest, got tired of paying lip service to the idea of a “face off” on intelligent design and spoke instead about “creationism,” which, again, means something very different.
[…]Joanna Masel, the evolutionary biologist, summed up with a non sequitur: “Once you pick out a theology that is incompatible with evolution, it becomes incompatible with all science.”
This is what your children get for paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in tutition and fees. They get an indoctrination, not an education. (Assuming they don’t get expelled or denied their degree for disagreeing with their secular leftist overlords). It’s a perplexing problem – how can you raise world-changing children if this groupthink is what they’ll face on the university campus?
Does anyone else find it sickening that the radical left can be paid to GRADE STUDENTS to force them to agree with views at odds with their own parents, and reality as a whole? Darwinism is – like global warming, Marxism and feminism – the equivalent of flat-earthism. Why pay to learn that? And why be coerced to agree with grade-granting flat-earthers who only know one side of every issue?
WINTERY KNIGHT 
We also don’t teach them about other forms of magic such as wizardry and leprachauns, so all is equal.
LikeLike
Maybe they should? At least in wizardry you still have the wizard. Evolution has nothing!
LikeLike
The fundamental problem with darwinism is neither common descent, nor natural selection. It is the utterly insufficient mechanism of random, undirected mutation to account for the complexity, beauty, design, and purposeful nature of life — including consciousness, will, rationality, moral sense, sense of beauty, longings, aspirations, sense of purpose, quest for meaning, etc.
Speaking of wizardry and leprechauns, who was it that said darwinism was a fairy tale for grown-ups? Having to decide between God and Nothing, I’ll take my chances with an all-encompassing, eternal, all-powerful, wise, and omniscient God.
LikeLike
I think we can all learn a lesson about Darwinism by looking at the Climategate scandal. People what they need to believe in order to be thought of as smart, and in order to get research grants. No one can believe in Darwinism – just look at how they treat their critics. It’s not science, it’s DOGMA.
LikeLike
OK I’m definitely not a Darwinist but I’m sorry WK- that’s just a terrible argument. “No one can believe in Darwinism – just look at how they treat their critics.” If I didn’t know better I would say that this trolling!! Lol, but seriously- the truth of an idea cannot be judged by the actions of its adherents, doesn’t that commit the genetic fallacy?
I’m saying this not because I’m defending Darwinism, but because I think we need to make sure we only use good arguments in order to be as truth-seeking and persuasive as possible.
LikeLike
Because most Darwinists would love any excuse to ignore the arguments against their views. By giving stupid arguments we hand that opportunity to them on a plate. It’s so easy for them to just say, “See- that’s the best those fundies can do!! Haha!” when they see a poor argument like that. Let’s be careful as ambassadors for Christ.
LikeLike
They do themselves a disservice with that level of ignorance though.
By failing to explain what ID is *really* about, they leave people unable to refute it when they actually do come across someone who knows what they’re talking about.
On the flip-side, I get annoyed when I see (or discover) that an ID proponent isn’t presenting what evolutionists actually believe. Too often “they have no explanation for this” just isn’t true. That’s not to say that the explanation is any good (it’s probably crap) but it leaves people ill-equipped.
LikeLike