News Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[franznietzsche]

As far as the Spagetti Noodle Monster is concerned I have read the article, and find it amusing but by no means a credible argument intended to show that teaching intelligent design will open a can of worms for other ridiculous theories and beliefs. Not only does the Spagetti Noodle Monster theory defy any common rationale, but it is not a commonly accepted belief system around the world. In history we teach about main world events, individuals, and civilizations. We can't possilbly afford to teach every single aspect of history for the sake of fair coverage, because not everyone needs (or wants) to learn in detail the origins of silverware, the history of a single insignificant carpenter in Norway, or the history of a mostly unknown town in Australia during the time of WWII. Institutions and educators use common sense and relevance of subject matter when choosing what specific topics to teach in a class. The Spagetti Noodle Monster theory is a weak satirical tactic employed to divert attention from the real issue.

I don't think you understand the Spaghetti Monster. Its not a slipperry slope critique. Its not about saying that doing this opens a can of worms. Its saying that ID is the same thing as the Spaghetti Monster. And it is. Change proper nouns around and that letter is chock full of standard ID lines.

 

[Art]

So what you're saying Art is that it's ok to be close minded and to limit the variety of knowledge that one acquires.
I'm not suggesting that schools should try to influence students to embrace any religious doctrine, but that students should at least be made aware of the most common belief systems and traditions found around the world. As long as the subject is approached objectively there should be nothing wrong with it. In fact, it seems that understanding world religions would be a prerequisite for many history classes as many world events have been related to some significant religous movement or beliefs.

I have no objection to children being taught about the existence of religion or it's role in key events; that is not what I said. I said the teaching of religious doctrines should not be part of mainstream education.

 

[ahrkron]

Something loosely related, but equally sad, happened recently around here. Some big tobacco companies hired recently a Law professor from the University of Geneva to try to stop a ban on smoking in public places. The main argument they were pushing was that there is controversy about the effects of second hand smoking.

I was very saddened by this, since I looked at it as an attempt from those companies to use the "teach the controversy" strategy that seems to be working for ID'ers.

I really hope all those attempts (ID and big Tobacco) are stopped.

 

[hbarnum]

Intelligent design old and new

TheStatutoryApe (quoted by Evo):
You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument.
Evo:
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different

Me: Maybe completely different as a movement, but not intellectually. The basic intellectual idea of intelligent design, that life is too complicated to have evolved via natural selection (or other processes except its design by an intelligent designer) has been around for a long time, and was used against Darwin. In fact, I'll have to take a look, but I think Darwin gave explicit arguments against it. It's one of the intellectual triumphs of Darwinism to have given an explanation of how such complex, apparently machine-like, systems as living beings could have evolved without being designed.
The "watchmaker" argument is to analogize "see a complex living being, infer it was created by a being-desinger, with: see a watch, infer it was made by a watchmaker. Of course, there are reasons for the watch inference, other than difficulty imagining how else a watch could come into being: we've seen watchmakers and their watchmakings, or been told of them by credible sources.

The basic intellectual idea of ID should probably not be considered stupid, or even
necessarily unscientific, it's just that in the development of science, it's been left in the dust by evolution, especially evolution by natural selection. There are many things plausibly explained by evolution, including instances where organisms *don't* seem to have been intelligently designed, because they bear traces of having evolved out of other forms, that don't particularly seem like intelligent design if one is starting from scratch. Vestigial organs, etc...

I'm not a biologist, so I don't have all the zillions of examples to hand... probably Stephen Jay Gould's books of columns are full of examples.

Intelligent design is arguably less predictive in some areas than evolution by natural selection and other natural mechanisms such as genetic drift, because natural selection predicts "design features" that maximize reproductive success in a given (though changing) environment, whereas with ID, there's the question: intelligently designed *for what purpose*?

 

[Evo]

TheStatutoryApe (quoted by Evo):
You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument.
Evo:
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different
Me: Maybe completely different as a movement, but not intellectually. The basic intellectual idea of intelligent design, that life is too complicated to have evolved via natural selection (or other processes except its design by an intelligent designer) has been around for a long time, and was used against Darwin. In fact, I'll have to take a look, but I think Darwin gave explicit arguments against it. It's one of the intellectual triumphs of Darwinism to have given an explanation of how such complex, apparently machine-like, systems as living beings could have evolved without being designed.
The "watchmaker" argument is to analogize "see a complex living being, infer it was created by a being-desinger, with: see a watch, infer it was made by a watchmaker. Of course, there are reasons for the watch inference, other than difficulty imagining how else a watch could come into being: we've seen watchmakers and their watchmakings, or been told of them by credible sources.
The basic intellectual idea of ID should probably not be considered stupid, or even
necessarily unscientific, it's just that in the development of science, it's been left in the dust by evolution, especially evolution by natural selection. There are many things plausibly explained by evolution, including instances where organisms *don't* seem to have been intelligently designed, because they bear traces of having evolved out of other forms, that don't particularly seem like intelligent design if one is starting from scratch. Vestigial organs, etc...
I'm not a biologist, so I don't have all the zillions of examples to hand... probably Stephen Jay Gould's books of columns are full of examples.
Intelligent design is arguably less predictive in some areas than evolution by natural selection and other natural mechanisms such as genetic drift, because natural selection predicts "design features" that maximize reproductive success in a given (though changing) environment, whereas with ID, there's the question: intelligently designed *for what purpose*?

But this isn't what we're discussing, we're discussing the Discovery Institute's religious push of their version of ID into schools as science.

 

[Astronuc]

Professor treated for roadside beating
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/06/creationism.class.ap/index.html

LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- A college professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he derided Christian conservatives said he was beaten by two men along a rural road early Monday.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said the men referred to the class when they beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object, the Lawrence Journal-World reported.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."
. . . .
The professor said he confronted the men after they were tailgating his vehicle along a road south of Lawrence. "I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he said.

Mirecki planned to offer a spring course called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" after the Kansas Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

Very troubling if true.

 

[Astronuc]

The other ID.

An interview with Don Wise, creator of "incompetent design".

Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design."

Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence. Seed asked him to chat about his theory, reactions he's received to it, and the anthem he penned to rally people to his cause.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php?page=all&p=y

 

[Entropy]

Just don't teach ID or evolution. Most people don't need to know it anyways. You don't need to know about evolution to learn the basics of biology. Problem fixed.

 

[Entropy]

All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20?
Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!

How is that a "poor" design, it works better than any man-made creation. Thats like saying a motorcycle is a "poor" design because it's just a car cut in half.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Hurray!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/s...en=0045908773e05cdb&ei=5094&partner=homepage"

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday.
...
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.
...
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

And there you go.

 

[rachmaninoff]

There's a new thread about this in GD.

 

[Astronuc]

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones.

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

AP

 

[Wishbone]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID. And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

 

[Evo]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID

You're forgetting that the ID proponents are the ones that brought up the ridiculous idea that things appear too perfect to not be intentionally designed.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID. And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

It is fine to speculate about possibilities or consider analogies in the pursuit of knowledge but the truth is obscured when our emotional attachment to our beliefs preclude them from further examination or evaluation.

 

[Astronuc]

When someone aruges that since the human body isn't perfect that means the intellegent design fails, you KNOW they are desperatley reaching to try to anger anyone that believes in ID.

Not necessarily - they might simply be facetious - hence .

The problem all along has been that ID is NOT science, but a religious view poorly packaged as science. In fact, ID is an anti-science dogma, and has no place in a science course, except as an example of dogma (worth no more than 5 minutes in a 200 hr biology course).

I don't mind if ID is discussed in the context of a comparative religious course in which various creation myths/beliefs are disucssed. But let us be honest and call it what it 'really' is.

 

[phcatlantis]

The problem all along has been that ID is NOT science, but a religious view poorly packaged as science. In fact, ID is an anti-science dogma, and has no place in a science course, except as an example of dogma (worth no more than 5 minutes in a 200 hr biology course).

Just out of curiousity, if ID has relevance to the philosophy of science--as a critique--why wouldn't you teach it?

 

[Astronuc]

It depends on what is meant by 'teaching' ID.

I have no problem with a discussion of ID in a classroom in the context of a philosophical discussion, whether it be philosophy of science or of religion. However, that was not the intent of the Dover school board.

The objective of the Dover school board and some other ID proponents has been to teach a religious belief as a replacement of science. That is wrong!

Furthermore, the Dover ID proponents were dishonest in their intentions, which is contrary to various religious principles with which I am familiar.

 

[russ_watters]

And if psudo-philisophical/science arguments cannot be simply brought up for 30 seconds in a science class, then I do not want my quantum mechanics teacher to mention shrodinger's cat.

I suspect most teachers of biology will mention ID when they teach evolution - they'll just teach the science correctly. ID needs to be mentioned in science class because it is a quinticential example of abuse of science for religious/political gain.

As the jude pointed out, it's not like the ID people were looking for a 30 second mention of a competing theory, they were essentially comitting scientific fraud.

 

[Astronuc]

As someone quoted Morpheus (The Matrix) as he put it when asked if people don't believe him, "My beliefs don't require them to".

Here is a BBC report on it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm#, which quotes

Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent. "That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."

Briggs is incorrect in his assertion. People who are motivated by religion are not excluded from the public script, they simply need to use a different venue, e.g. the internet, their own church, the media, a stadium, etc.

 

[pattylou]

Teachers often feel that there is not enough time in the classroom as it is. I certainly feel that way.

To anyone who would like to see ID in the science classroom, I have a question. What specifically would you like to see *removed* from the curriculum in order to make room for ID?

 

[Evo]

Teachers often feel that there is not enough time in the classroom as it is. I certainly feel that way.
To anyone who would like to see ID in the science classroom, I have a question. What specifically would you like to see *removed* from the curriculum in order to make room for ID?

You know they're going to say "science".

 

[selfAdjoint]

You know they're going to say "science".

Nah. "Godless humanism". "Biased Secularism". "Unamericanism". According to them, classrooms are chock full of these.

 

[pattylou]

Well then, let me be more specific. I teach microbiology to aspiring nurses. Which of the following lecture topics would pro-ID'ists like to see compromised in health care providers, in order to allow time to "teach" a supernatural explanation for the diversity of life:

History of microbiology (Aristotle to Bacon to Semmelweiss to the present) and a survey of the microbiological world
Review of chemistry
Staining techniques, nomenclature, and some taxonomy
Bacterial cell structures
Metabolism of the bacterial cell
Methods of disinfection
Methods of antibiosis (Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance and spread of resistance)
Genetics
Genetic engineering and gene therapy
Virology with an emphasis on current trends, HIV, etc
Bacterial families delineating familial characteristics that lead to pathology
Vaccinations and introductory immunology
Epidemiology
Parasitology (worms, certain protozoa, and other non-bacterial pathogens)
First line of human defense (nonspecific barriers to infection)
Second line of defense
Third line of defense (immune system)
Selected biotechnological diagnostic methods (ELISA, polymerase chain reaction, etc)

... there are probably several topics that are slipping my mind at the moment. I realize most contributors here are very happy about the Dover ruling. If you are not, do you realize that to "teach" intelligent design actually means *not* teaching students some other facet of health-related microbiology? Certainly in my limited experience, I can't imagine what could be sacrificed from the standard pre-nursing micro instruction without a cost in terms of nursing education.

Maybe some other biology course has more "room" in it, but I doubt it.

 

[McGyver]

Here's a Monkey Wrench into ID vs. Evolution Debate

Because so much of today's political arguments are so polarized as all one way vs. the other - here's my monkey wrench to bring things into the middle. And Pattylou, as a nurse I'm sure you've observed healings and things in science that are yet to be explained.

I won't claim to be sufficiently familiar with the "Intelligent Design" model, but I'll share some food for thought. As a practical person and centrist, all I need do to disable either position is raise evidence of "doubt." In this instance, I raise doubt as to a 100% certainty that evolution and Darwinism can explain what we know today.

Darwin used the evolution of plants, animals, early man, and Earth to theorize that humans evolved to what we are today all through his theories of many years ago. Evolutionists have had many years to come up with "clear and convincing" evidence to fill in the many unanswered questions. We're still trying to figure out if there ever was an advanced civilization called Atlantis. Why can't we verify this?

I postulate the real truth is some combination of Evolution and a Master Creator or higher power. How that fits into the Intelligent Design teachings - I cannot attest to. But I have doubts that modern humans of the last 5000-10,000 years are the evolutionary descendants of ancient man. At some point in time - the "Spirit" being came into being, and Darwin never proved that existed millions of years ago. Could modern man's "spirit" have come here possibly from space particles, from some form of higher power or spiritual source, i.e. some part of Intelligent Design? Can we explain the existence of UFO's via either evolution or ID?

What has always raised my curiosity is why some civilizations (of the last 5000-10,000 years) have been so advanced, and why others almost barbaric in comparison. how could multiple civilizations on the same planet be so vastly different? There are many spiritual writings of the earlier civilizations which have raised propsects of powerful beings from beyond, albeit UFOs or a God. Some religions emphatically embrace reincarnation and the belief of other life forms on other planets as a means of existence before reaching some final end point, or a Heaven.

There certainly have been ample amounts of unexplainable events by the "physical sciences." The totality of all what I've discussed above - then casts some DOUBT as to simply modern Evolution as a 100% verifiable theory. There always was an element of "speculation" in both Evolution and Adam and Eve/7 days of Creation. I challenge scientists today to explain and corroborate the basis of paranormal activity and apparent spiritual knowings, healings, and occurances - using either Evolution, ID, or any other theory.

I suspect the reasons that these unexplained events continue to evade science is due to the fact that in earlier years, man lacked the technological information and communication systems necessary for reporting and validation - that is so widely used in commercialized technology and data compilation. So in truth, modern science has had perhpas only the last 40-50 to study and report on Spiritual and Paranormal event. It would appear modern science avoids finding any corroborating evidence in these new areas, particularly in the West, where the greatest technological potential exists. Doesn't anyone find this odd? The West has similarly been late to embrace or consider Eastern healing and other practices! Western science must walk their own talk!

I postulate that we have entered into a period where there will be increasing signs and measureable incidents that evidence a Higher Power, or better known as the Spirit inherent in "life." I suspect within the next 10to 20 years science will finally verify the existence of a Higher Life form or a God, including other (Spiritual) dimensions, eneregies, life forms, etc. as postulated by Einstein in his Super-String Theory which consumed him in his last 30 years of life. He was certain there were at least 10 ( maybe 25) or more "dimensions" which co-existed with matter. Evolution NEVER postulated in such detail. I suspect this is where science and spirit co-exist. Einstein also believed in the "after-life" - as it followed his theory that energy was neither created nor destroyed, wherefore the spirit form of the person must continue on.

I can only postuate that my own "unexplained personal experiences" were due to a Spirit, Higher Power, or a God. But, I see it as a "moot point" to argue which God, or which book, or which set of rules, is the absolute truth. I MUST hold out for corroboration for the eventual answers. For now, we as teachers and scientists should be respectful of what we do not understand, yet, be wise enough to know that which is substance and that which amounts to absolute speculation and bias when presenting these teachings in ANY schools, be private or public. For now, I believe the Courts have handed down the correct ruling as ID appears to be overstepping its "verifyable" boundaries - setting aside the separation of church and state issues which ID raises in public education. That having been said, we MAY NOT be far away from verification of life through via other theories, and once proven, they would then be permissable in science education in the public schools.

I describe "Faith" as: a belief, based upon critique, scientific study, and observation, that a day will come when all of our answers and the Fullness of Life shall be revealed.

by:
Stephen Dolle

 

[daveb]

ID has already been proven to be true, as shown in http://www.venganza.org/" .

 

[russ_watters]

I won't claim to be sufficiently familiar with the "Intelligent Design" model, but I'll share some food for thought. As a practical person and centrist, all I need do to disable either position is raise evidence of "doubt." In this instance, I raise doubt as to a 100% certainty that evolution and Darwinism can explain what we know today. [emphasis added]

No, McGyver. Asking for a 100% certainty is a great-big flashing neon sign that says you don't understand the concept of a scientific theory. There isn't 100% certainty in any scientific theory - nor does there need to be.

Evolution, as a theory may be 98% proven overall - and how does that compare to ID? ID does not even qualify as a theory - it's inherrently unprovable, and therefore isn't science. And that means it does not qualify for discussion as science in a science classroom.

Beyond that, it's proponents actually lie about it - so in addition to not being science, it's also a fraud.

We're still trying to figure out if there ever was an advanced civilization called Atlantis. Why can't we verify this?

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I postulate the real truth is some combination of Evolution and a Master Creator or higher power.

I agree (I'm a christian and I believe in God and some form of creation) - but that has no place at all in a science classroom because of what I said above.

At some point in time - the "Spirit" being came into being, and Darwin never proved that existed millions of years ago.

No such thing has been shown to exist, so again, that has nothing to do with evolution, and certainly isn't Darwin's responsibility to look into.

Can we explain the existence of UFO's via either evolution or ID?

UFOs have nothing to do with this issue.

What has always raised my curiosity is why some civilizations (of the last 5000-10,000 years) have been so advanced, and why others almost barbaric in comparison. how could multiple civilizations on the same planet be so vastly different?

Now you're confusing anthropology with biology. There are good answers to your questions, but they have nothing to do with this issue... (perhaps you could ask them in the history forum...).

I challenge scientists today to explain and corroborate the basis of paranormal activity and apparent spiritual knowings, healings, and occurances - using either Evolution, ID, or any other theory.

That has nothing to do with evolution either. And again, our questions about the paranormal have good answers - perhaps you could post them in the Skepticism and Debunking forum...

I suspect within the next 10to 20 years science will finally verify the existence of a Higher Life form or a God, including other (Spiritual) dimensions, eneregies, life forms, etc. as postulated by Einstein in his Super-String Theory which consumed him in his last 30 years of life. He was certain there were at least 10 ( maybe 25) or more "dimensions" which co-existed with matter. Evolution NEVER postulated in such detail.

Huh? None of that has anything to do with evolution. What do you think evolution is?

For now, we as teachers and scientists should be respectful of what we do not understand, yet, be wise enough to know that which is substance and that which amounts to absolute speculation and bias when presenting these teachings in ANY schools, be private or public. For now, I believe the Courts have handed down the correct ruling as ID appears to be overstepping its "verifyable" boundaries - setting aside the separation of church and state issues which ID raises in public education.

Agreed.

 

[phcatlantis]

And that means it does not qualify for discussion as science in a science classroom.

This is actually a pretty key point in the debate. Conceding that ID is unscientific, why should it be barred from a science classroom?

Beyond that, it's proponents actually lie about it...

Might as well add that proponents of "scientism" lie to advance their case. Neither claim is very clear, properly substantiated, or even useful.

...so in addition to not being science, it's also a fraud.

In what way? And ID in what form? Where does Behe present a single theory of intelligent design and say "this is a scientific theory?" How about Stephen Meyer or the Discovery Institute? All of these proponents make very long and detailed arguments against materialism--their primary gripe appears to lie with the philosophical foundation of science and, in a more immediate sense, the state of science education. What incredulity they express at certain products of scientific research pales in comparison.

 

[Evo]

Conceding that ID is unscientific, why should it be barred from a science classroom?

The fact that it's unscientific would be a biggie.

Might as well add that proponents of "scientism" lie to advance their case. Neither claim is very clear, properly substantiated, or even useful.
In what way? And ID in what form? Where does Behe present a single theory of intelligent design and say "this is a scientific theory?" How about Stephen Meyer or the Discovery Institute? All of these proponents make very long and detailed arguments against materialism--their primary gripe appears to lie with the philosophical foundation of science and, in a more immediate sense, the state of science education. What incredulity they express at certain products of scientific research pales in comparison.

Are you unaware of the Discovery Institute's stated goals?

"Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

From the Discovery Institute's "The Wedge" proposal.

"Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

"To see Design Theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

"Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians."

"We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith."

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

 

[phcatlantis]

The fact that it's unscientific would be a biggie.

Yes, I understand there is at least this dicta that only "science should be taught in science class." My question was why? In fact, Russ has already advocated touching a legal issue--clearly not a scientific question--in a science class; if anything, he's also open to the idea of advocating a particular political point of view in science classrooms. So since it seems neither he or I take that "principle" seriously, maybe he should explain why ID is singularly and wholly unfit for discussion in science class. I mean, is there a line that ID cannot help but cross in terms of advocacy? Is it possible, for example, to address other epistemologies besides materialism?

Are you unaware of the Discovery Institute's stated goals?

Yeah, I don't see what's so bad about them. For example, I don't see a call for scientific illiteracy or incompetence in the Wedge Document. If whether or not you prefer religion or scientism has any intersection with the metal of more common or important social interests, I haven't found it.