John Solum

The Intelligent Desgin Network has an online form where you can submit comments on the proposed ID-friendly modifications to the Ohio Science Academic Content Standards. If you've got a few minutes you could let them know what you think.

<a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ohiocomments.asp" target="_blank">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ohiocomments.asp</a>

There's also a link to the proposed modifications:

<a href="http://www.sciohio.org/seaoindi.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciohio.org/seaoindi.htm</a>

This is my favorite:

I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, since after all, Behe's IC is on par with Newton's discoveries.

hezekiah jones

<a href="http://www.sciohio.org/seaover.htm" target="_blank">AN OVERVIEW OF OHIO SCIENCE STANDARDS</a>

This is interesting:

According to this definition, astronomy would qualify as an "origins science," since it also attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place in the distant past. But astronomy is essentially physics, which the IDers respect as being "empirical." Note also that the IDers are here attempting to rename biology "origins science." Sneaky bastards.

Obviously many components within the study of biology are every bit as "empirical" as chemisty and physics. How could it be otherwise? Biology, and every other instrument of human enquiry, is every bit as restricted by the so-called "empirical sciences" as the "empirical sciences" themselves!

All science is tentative, whether "empirical" or "historical." Here they are drawing a false distinction, it seems.

Now they're trying to suggest an objective comparison between biology and creationism? Please.

Based on scientific evidence - yes. So in other words, one could accept evolutionary theory completely, and simply add this statement: "Maybe a designer is in charge of all of this." So what? That seems to be "Intelligent Design Theory" in a nutshell.

The IDers favorite hobbyhorse.

Why even mention the Bible then? What does any of this have to do with science? "Design theory" appears to be nothing more than an entirely subjective additional (and needless) inference drawn from existing scientific observations. Maybe Barney the Dinosaur "designed" the universe. So what? What place does this have in science class?

Yes, of course. Couldn't resist, could they? Pure political pandering.

But it's not an "alternative theory." It's an additional inference, which anyone is perfectly free to draw, no matter what. That this additional inference even needs to be articulated at all is redundant and ridiculous, and has nothing to do with science, which, by definition, is "naturalistic."

Pantera

Ah, but I suspect SEAO aren't "proper IDers" but guitar strumming hillbillies. So they probably like anything that discredits astronomy as well. Bear in mind that it is a front for the American Family Association which doesn't even seem to have its own bank account yet (see <a href="http://www.sciohio.org/whatisseao.htm" target="_blank">here</a>). The <a href="http://www.afaohio.org/" target="_blank">AFA of Ohio's homepage</a> links to a <a href="http://reformation.net/COR/cordocs/sci.pdf" target="_blank">charming little article</a> on the Christian view of science written by Gish (yes, that Gish).

I aslo think their article on <a href="http://www.sciohio.org/evolfact.htm" target="_blank">Evolution - fact or theory</a> deserves a link every time this deranged gang of nutjobs are mentioned, if only to remind us all just how ignorant it is possible to be.

theyeti

Yeah right. As a person who work in a research institute, I can tell you that design gets exactly zero consideration from anyone. It's completely useless, scientifically speaking. In order to keep from being falsified with even a trivial amount of observation, IDers have had wrangle their so called theory into a state where it can be morphed into anything, makes no predictions, and explains absolutely nothing. It is pure pseudoscience. The overwhelming majority of researchers aren't even aware of these jokers; on the occasions when I've tried to explain it to them, they just laugh.

Just how stupid do these people think we are? "ID has nothing to do with religion". Bullshit. That's the whole reason why it was invented! To try to sneak creationism into science class without explicitly mentioning "God". I'm not sure what irritates me more -- the fact that they're trying to trash science, or the fact that they think people are gullible enough to accept their BS.

theyeti

theyeti

Why must you torment me so? That was stupider than a Chick tract.

Couldn't these idiots at least take the time to figure out what evolution is before spewing their vitriol at it? And I just loved the quotation section. It gives "selective quoting" a whole new meaning.

theyeti

Pantera

You think you're tormented? The guy who wrote that claims to have been a professor at my university.

S2Focus

Here are my comments:

At Dr. Jonathan Wells' lecture last Tuesday at the University of California, San Diego, Wesley Elsberry and I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Wells about the progress that he and his colleagues have been making in developing a scientifically testable theory of intelligent design.

Wesley has been closely following the development of ID theory over the past several years. In fact, he attended the 1997 NSTE conference where he asked the developers of ID theory about the status of ID. In particular, he suggested that they state what a scientific theory of design would look like, derive a testable hypothesis from that theory, and then verify that hypothesis by doing empirical research.

After Dr. Wells' lecture, Wesley asked him for a "progress report" summarizing ID researchers' accomplishments since 1997. Dr. Wells replied by citing Dr. Behe's "Darwins Black Box" which was published in 1996, implicitly admitting that no progress in developing a testable theory of design had been made over the past 5 years.

I then asked Dr. Wells about whether he and his colleagues had received funding or support from the biotechnology industry in their quest to develop a scientific theory of design. He replied that they had not.

So given the lack of apparent progress that ID researchers have made in developing their theory over the past 5 years, and given the apparent lack of interest the scientific community *and* private industry have shown in ID, I have to conclude that now is not a good time to introduce ID into the science curriculum. ID theory appears not to have any scientific basis at this time, and there presently don't appear to be any career opportunities in intelligent design, either in academia or private industry. You have a lot of work to do to demonstrate that ID belongs in science classrooms, and to date you've accomplished precious little to that end.

hezekiah jones

It seems that every time you get to the bottom of one of these webpages, there's some <a href="http://ils.student.utwente.nl/chordpro/y/Neil.Young/PieceOfCrap.chopro" target="_blank">piece of crap</a> they want you to buy. What could possibly be in these stupid books that hasn't already been posted (and thoroughly eviscerated) on a hundred other websites for free?

Blinn

<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/news/news02/feb02/1069851.html" target="_blank">Experts to weigh in on science standards</a>

Does anyone know anything about the IDers mentioned at the end of this article?

RufusAtticus

From the page:
Let's hope that Miller tears all of Wells arguments appart. I want a transcript!

-RvFvS