BadAnalogyGuy: "Besides, we're talking about Science here, not "Biblical Creationism" as such. The idea that the Earth was created in 6 literal days replete with "faith-challenging" dino fossils and other fairy tales is the story that Evolutionists spread as Intelligent Design dogma. It shows a very big gap in their knowledge of the ID field which is quite a bit less dogmatic about the 6 day theory and much more in tune with mainstream scientific method."
Response:
"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a subset of the religious antievolution arguments previously made by "creation science". IDC does not directly invoke *explicitly* young-earth creationist (YEC) claims, but IDC fails to *repudiate* them, either. In fact, many of the Discovery Institute fellows are themselves young-earth creationists, and the IDC hierarchy has been quite forthright in chucking out people with the temerity to point out that YEC claims go against the empirical evidence. This information is readily available to people who actually do know something about the IDC movement. Further, the "creation science" advocates made *exactly the same argument*, that they were only about the science. Anyone can read Dean Kenyon's affidavit for the Edwards v. Aguillard case decided in 1987 to confirm that.
No, we aren't talking about science when it comes to IDC. While the Discovery Institute "wedge document" listed establishing scientific justification for IDC as one of their 5-year goals back in 1999, this remains one of the most obvious and significant failures they've had in carrying out their program. In 2005, two IDC advocates gave sworn testimony that they did not themselves attempt to test IDC claims and the IDC journal PCID stopped publishing. Another more recently announced IDC journal called JOEI has yet to put out its first issue. When they can't even manage to keep the house organs going, it is pretty irresponsible to try to claim that there is anything science-y going on in the IDC movement. Back in 2006, I noted that even "cold fusion" had over 900 peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and nobody was urging that high school students needed to learn the "controversy" on that. So why should IDC get a pass before IDC convinces the scientific community that there is something there besides the *obvious* unconstitutional sham to privilege religious antievolution?
If IDC is "in tune" with mainstream science, why is it that anytime IDC advocates get a chance, they try to change the *definition* of science in state science standards? That doesn't sound very mainstream to me.
Slashdot Mirror
BadAnalogyGuy: "Besides, we're talking about Science here, not "Biblical Creationism" as such. The idea that the Earth was created in 6 literal days replete with "faith-challenging" dino fossils and other fairy tales is the story that Evolutionists spread as Intelligent Design dogma. It shows a very big gap in their knowledge of the ID field which is quite a bit less dogmatic about the 6 day theory and much more in tune with mainstream scientific method."
Response:
"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a subset of the religious antievolution arguments previously made by "creation science". IDC does not directly invoke *explicitly* young-earth creationist (YEC) claims, but IDC fails to *repudiate* them, either. In fact, many of the Discovery Institute fellows are themselves young-earth creationists, and the IDC hierarchy has been quite forthright in chucking out people with the temerity to point out that YEC claims go against the empirical evidence. This information is readily available to people who actually do know something about the IDC movement. Further, the "creation science" advocates made *exactly the same argument*, that they were only about the science. Anyone can read Dean Kenyon's affidavit for the Edwards v. Aguillard case decided in 1987 to confirm that.
No, we aren't talking about science when it comes to IDC. While the Discovery Institute "wedge document" listed establishing scientific justification for IDC as one of their 5-year goals back in 1999, this remains one of the most obvious and significant failures they've had in carrying out their program. In 2005, two IDC advocates gave sworn testimony that they did not themselves attempt to test IDC claims and the IDC journal PCID stopped publishing. Another more recently announced IDC journal called JOEI has yet to put out its first issue. When they can't even manage to keep the house organs going, it is pretty irresponsible to try to claim that there is anything science-y going on in the IDC movement. Back in 2006, I noted that even "cold fusion" had over 900 peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and nobody was urging that high school students needed to learn the "controversy" on that. So why should IDC get a pass before IDC convinces the scientific community that there is something there besides the *obvious* unconstitutional sham to privilege religious antievolution?
If IDC is "in tune" with mainstream science, why is it that anytime IDC advocates get a chance, they try to change the *definition* of science in state science standards? That doesn't sound very mainstream to me.