John Solum

Coragyps
I really think you ought to run, but asking people to move to Texas is too much of a sacrafice. You can only take so many bumper stickers that say "Texan by the grace of God" or "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could"

I think having scientifically literate people on school boards in Texas is important since Texas has some of the most influential creationist "textbook watchers" in the US, there's a brief blurb on it <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/textbrds.htm" target="_blank">here</a>


NialScorva
I think the lack of respect will backfire, it will reinforce the creationist idea that scientists are arrogant and look down on the general population. This will make people sympathetic to the creationists, and therefore lessen the impact of refutations of creationist ideas.

With that said, I do think that creationist speakers do play fast and free with the facts, and I think they should be called on it. This is where I think your unemotional approach would be good.

Oolon
I agree.

I think that's a great idea for a high school biology class or even intro college classes. The legislation the intelligent design crowd is pushing could help (I'm not in facor of ID legislation, but if it ever does get passed, it'd be nice to be able to use it against them). They want students to be taught about "why evolutionary theory generates controversy", and clearly some of the controversy about evolution is due to the fact that people have misconceptions about evolutionary theory. I'd love to be able to use ID legislation to ensure that people have a better understanding of evolution.


The web is a wonderful resource, and while it's now easier for creationists to distribute their information, it's also easier to counter it. I've seen fiery creationists come to a message board with their "devastating" arguments only to be shot down by a couple of links to the TO archive. Of course, the creationist will likely lay low for a while and then return making the same claims, but while that's frustrating, it's still easy to shoot them down again.

What I'd like to see is more scientists putting on talks for the general public about evolutionary biology, geology, etc. (any area of science that creationists oppose). They could make these presentations without mentioning creationism (this would avoid giving a false legitimacy to creationism), but people would still be presented with the evidence against creationism.

What do you think?

pseudobug

I just finished listening to the archived NPR show with Behe, and I'm really surprised no one has mentioned one of Behe's comments.

When Behe was ask by someone (not sure if it was the host or a caller) how one would "test the theory of ID", Behe replied (paraphrasing) with something to the effect that scientists could easily do it with a flagella-deficient bacterium by following it for "several thousand" generations to see if it developed a flagellum.

HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?!?!?!?

I don't know whether Behe is being disingenuous and trying to fool the audience, or if he is just stupid and doesn't know how to formulate a frigging hypothesis. What he proposed is in no way a test of for the presence of design or a designer--it would be a test for evolutionary processes.

THere is little wonder there has been zero evidence put forth backing ID if such scintillating intellects are behind such a bowel movement of a theory.

ex-idaho

I have heard Behe on several radio programs, Xian and secular. He always uses that stupid Mt. Rushmore analogy. And the man is obsessed with flagellum.

I was terribly obvious that the scientist they had on was trying to be diplomatic about the whole thing. I kept hoping he would go on the offensive but it never happened.

There were many holes in Behe's argument that went unchallenged. If only the program had been longer.