Academic Freedom
As the creation-evolution debate heats up again in states like Georgia, Kansas and
Michigan, various organizations are marshalling their resources to support one side or the
other.  Although many issues are being discussed relative to this debate, a forgotten issue
may be the fundamental American ideal of academic freedom.  Those who espouse the
philosophy of naturalism/materialism have monopolized the teaching of their view
especially when it comes to biological science education.  They vociferously assert that
any other philosophy is unscientific and therefore must be banned from the classroom. 
They who trumpet the concept of academic freedom turn out to be those who deny it to
those who disagree with their philosophy – even to those with advanced degrees in the
biological sciences.
To contend that a supernaturalistic  philosophy regarding the cosmos should be banned
from public education flies in the face of the history of modern science.  Many great
pioneers and innovators of modern science were supernaturalists – including Darwin
himself.  If these great minds could conclude that supernaturalism and science can
rationally coexist, why do the elite who control biological science education, or any other
science education for that matter, feel they must suppress any discussion of
supernaturalism – except to heap scorn upon it?
Their universal answer to supernaturalism is that it is unscientific.  Actually, the
postulation of a god of chance who is the source of all we observe in the cosmos is a most
unscientific view.  The science of probabilities demonstrates the accidental existence and
development of the universe – and life on earth – is one in an infinite number.  Holding
such a view could scarcely be called scientific.
Academic freedom to discuss supernaturalism as opposed to naturalism regarding
creation is not a matter of separation of church and state as some would argue.  To
support the idea of a god of chance is no more or less of a religion than to support the
idea of the God of creation.
Ultimately, the basic assumptions of both naturalism and supernaturalism are a matter of
faith.  Why, then, should the philosophy of supernaturalism be banned from public
classroom discussion?