Dispute over the Utility of the Intelligent Design Theory for Science

According to intelligent design theory, certain biological and cosmic phenomena were designed by an intelligent being, which could be just as well natural and supernatural. This design is to be scientifically detectable in basically similar fashion as in the case of the effects of the purposeful activity of man. However, critics pose an objection that unscientific character of this theory is discernible in that it is not useful for science because it does not inspire new scientific research and thus it is stopping the progress of science. It is claimed that this theory could easily explain any phenomenon, referring to the category of „intelligent design”, and in this case the word „explanation” has ironic overtone. It is indicated also that proponents of intelligent design theory do not publish the results of their research in renowned scientific journals. This objection could be answered in twofold way: methodological and sociological in character. According to the first answer, science does not depend solely on inspiring new research but also on offering a new view of the known facts, and the design conclusion could be made and justified independently of whether it enables to gain knowledge of its maker or method of its accomplishment. The second answer is that development of novel theories is in large degree hampered by the resistance of the defenders of an orthodox theory, and of established understanding of science, who basically do not display tolerance for revolutionary theories. The mechanisms such as the procedure of reviewing of articles or financing of research projects system, controlled by the defenders of status quo, are of great importance in that case. The chances to receive the grants which could facilitate and accelerate the development of a new, going against the status quo theory, as well as to publish articles inspired by this theory in recognized scientific journals are minuscule, and the change of such situation requires the change of the preference pattern in the world of science.

Perception of the Implementation of Academic Freedom by Academic Teachers in Poland

Stemming from the theory of the perception of human rights, the article identifies the main types of violations of academic freedom in Polish universities, the features of scientists, and the type of university the most often affected by these violations. The methods involve basic descriptive statistics measures and ordinary least squares regression. The study reveals that perceived academic freedom is higher for full professors or university professors than for assistant professors. The highest violations are felt by scientists holding lower academic positions but with long work experience. Academics employed at universities with a long tradition of education perceive the implementation of academic freedom more positively than their colleagues employed at universities with a short tradition of education.

The article is devoted to problem of the relationship between university and contemporary culture. There are following main areas of the analysis: equality and inequality of educational opportunity at the higher education level, a role of general and specialist training in the students' teaching, academic freedom, hierarchical structure of university and pluralism of academic discourse. All these subjects are analysed against the background of a broader social and cultural condition

Academic Freedom, Freedom of Expression in Education: Selected Issues

The 2021 amendment to the Law on Higher Education and Science excluded from the scope of disciplinary responsibility of scientists “expression of religious, philosophical or worldview beliefs.” Leaving aside the true intentions of the legislator, it must be acknowledged that this regulation deals with classic problems of constitutional law and human rights, and as such are important. Various problems and dilemmas related to the expression by academics of their beliefs exist in reality. The purpose of the article is to recognize the more important issues of freedom of speech in didactics, taking into account particularly difficult situations. The author is of the opinion that de lege lata complete exemption from disciplinary liability for preaching beliefs during classes with students is not possible.