One of the most interesting things I have learned so far this semester is that evolution, contrary to popular belief, is actually an empirically observable fact, not a theory. When my "Human Origins" professor said that in lecture, I was confused. That is, until he clarified that the "theory" part of the "theory of evolution" is the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Science is still debating, testing and revising the theory of the mechanisms of evolution. But that organisms that no longer exist on Earth evolved into the organisms we see today-including humans- is stone-cold fact. It's simply impossible to refute what we see in the fossil record.Though I know that the fact of evolution is not accepted by all, I was still shocked to read in a March 20 Chronicle of Higher Education article that the Texas legislature has introduced a new bill that would protect students and professors at public universities who wish to study intelligent design from discrimination.

OK, I know. Texas, among several other states, is infamous for disputing evolution and refusing to teach it in public schools. But even so, why is this bill necessary at all?

The right of Texas public university students and professors to believe, say and study whatever they want is already protected several times over by the Constitution. There is no real need for the state of Texas to pass an additional bill to protect those who hold one specific belief. However, aside from being redundant, this bill could potentially have other more insidious effects. If this bill passes, it sets a precedent for the protection of the study of other potentially harmful beliefs that cannot be proven scientifically.

If we allow students and professors to study intelligent design, a theory that has been widely disproved and has no scientific or historical basis, it would be too easy for those who think that, for example, homosexuality, is a psychological disorder, to call for a bill protecting their studies from discrimination as well.

Furthermore, when it comes to higher education, there are certain expectations about the kind of studies that are conducted. I think the Brandeis motto puts it best: "Truth even unto its innermost parts." Although Rep. Bill Zelder, a Texas Republican and the author of the bill, argues that the study of intelligent design should be protected because "we can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies," academic freedom does not imply the freedom to study anything and everything.

The purpose of higher education is to pursue truth through empirical research and observation and contribute to furthering humanity through knowledge. It is not to pursue theories like intelligent design, which cannot be proven by any means other than speculation. It is certainly possible that a divine power created the Earth, but we have absolutely no way of proving whether or not that actually occurred. Until scientific or historical evidence-other than the Bible-surfaces that a higher power created the Earth, condoning the study of intelligent design would make a mockery of Texas institutions and would be an affront to everything for which academia stands.

In addition to degrading the values of higher education, this bill would also condone the use of public funds (which we all know are hard to come by right now) for the study of a theory that is primarily religious in origin. The fundamental issue of the separation of church and state aside, condoning the study of intelligent design is tantamount to actively promoting a specific religious belief. If students wanted to study religion as a whole, including the Bible and the story of creation, that would be a much more productive use of public funds. But instead, this bill delegates public funds to protect the futile study of a specific scientific belief that we have no means of proving to be true.

I am not arguing that believing in intelligent design is inherently bad. I actually have a lot of respect for those people whose faith is strong enough that they are able to reconcile the miracles that the Bible describes with the hard evidence that has been found on Earth. What I am arguing is that the study of intelligent design has no place in higher education. As students, we are here to pursue truth, and our professors are here to help us in that pursuit. Science has proven that evolution occurred, not intelligent design. Thus, we cannot accept it as a viable discourse in the realm of higher education.