notto

It looks like the creationists (or IDists???) may have gotten stomped in Ohio.

<a href="http://www.cincypost.com/2002/mar/12/evol031202.html" target="_blank">http://www.cincypost.com/2002/mar/12/evol031202.html</a>
----------------------------------
Supporters of intelligent design told the State Board of Education on Monday they were willing to drop their request to teach the concept explicitly in favor of allowing classroom discussion of evidence against evolution.

''Ohio should enact no definition of science that would prevent the discussion of other theories,'' said Stephen Meyer, a philosophy professor and a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle. ''We think an honest critique of Darwin's theory will support our cause in the end'' by averting the scientific and religious debate over intelligent design.

Two scientists participating in Monday's discussion were aghast at ''ID,'' saying it represents an attempt by the Discovery Institute think tank and fundamentalist groups to use law to legitimatize a concept unable to clear the scientific hurdles of research, peer review and consensus.

---------------------
I guess this leaves it up to them to come up with scientific evidence against evolution. That should be a short discussion.

I think that this comment "We think an honest critique of Darwin's theory will support our cause in the end." sums up their position. They think that there is no honesty in science. Of course they seem to be hypocrites when presented with "honest critique" of their theories. They they claim bias, censorship, and humanism are to blaim.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Oooh! Well isn't that just positively magnanimous of those people!

"Okay, we'll drop our fraudulent little escapade, because that's just the kind of guys we are, so long as the evolutionary priesthood doesn't strongarm the kids that ask questions into state-mandated silence."

In other words, the current status quo. What a waste of time and money.

Frickin' duh!! These people so transparently ridiculous.

Automaton

Excellent! I thought I was going to have to pray for the souls of those poor Ohioian kids that would have one particular unscientific religious dogma pushed down their throats as scientific.

hezekiah jones

Denied the opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate what they called, "The Operation." They would select a school board and then threaten to beat them up if they taught the so-called "intelligent design."

Four months later they started another operation which they called, "The Other Operation." In this racket they selected another school board and threatened not to beat them up if they didn't teach "intelligent design."

One month later they hit upon "The Other Other Operation." In this the school board was threatened that if they did teach "intelligent design," they would beat him up. This, for the Discovery Brothers, was the turning point.

Valentine Pontifex

No they are still not asking for the status quo. They are still asking for a backsliding of the status quo.

Now they know it is unlikely for them to get ID as part of the offical science standards as much as they might want it. So they ask for more than what they intend to get so they can "comprimise" latter on.

They are trying to insert "evidence" against evolution in the classroom. This concession is no concession at all.

ConiferBog

NEWBIE DELURKING ALERT: FIRST POST

Howdy, all. A pleasure to join you.

If you guys are disgusted at this, I'm elated. The IDists have agreed to drop their offensive in return for presenting anti-evolution "evidence"???

I can't be the only one who thinks this is terrific.

An honest, empirically informed presentation of creationist arguments against the body of evidence for evolution would be like organizing a fistfight between Charles Nelson Reilly and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

To my knowledge there is no scientifically credible evidence against evolution, nor is there any in favor of any competing theory. All honest people need to win this battle, then, is to vigilantly monitor what the IDists present as evidence and debunk it. In the long run, this seems to me a terrific opportunity to gradually and permanently destroy the credibility of ID as a scientific enterprise.

--ConiferBog

hezekiah jones

Lord V., maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see what's the big deal about allowing discussion. Of course we'll have to wait until September to see if and how the standards are modified, and if the Discovery Institute can come up with some "evidence against evolution" as an example for its version of "discussion" that isn't either spurious, fraudulent, or irrelevant.

I can't imagine that Ohio needs to codify a requirement for "discussion" into its science standards. The teachers still have to comply with the curriculum, and kids are free to question anything they like.

If there really is "evidence against evolution," it's probably already included in biology textbooks, and is simply being misinterpreted by the deep thinkers at the Discovery Institute.

[Edited to add: Hi there Bog. I agree with you. I think these chumps have their vestigial tails firmly gripped between their "stones," as the Book of Job would say.]

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

theyeti

I agree with Lord Valentine on this. The "compromise" is to allow teachers to teach ID without requiring them to do so. Basically, it lets teachers teach whatever they want with impunity. They might spend a day or two on evolution, and then the rest of the week on ID. They might even get in some biblical literalism, and if called out on it will just claim to be teaching ID. Since creationists opperate with the greatest intimidation at the local level, this works out great for the DI.

These bastards are slick. If the "compromise" gets turned down, they'll play the victim and pretend to be the voice of moderation in the face of the 'dogmatic Darwinist censors'. They'll milk it for all its worth. If the "compromise" is accepted, they've gotten just what they've wanted without appearing overbearing.

theyeti

Kevin Dorner

ConiferBog: Welcome to the forums. Hope you have a nice stay.

I don't consider the allowance of teacher-presented "evidence against evolution" to be anything better than the allowance of full-bore young-earth creationism in public classrooms.

Mostly, this has to do with the quality of "evidence" that will be presented. How much "evidence" is there? There isn't any. What is left to be presented? The standard repertoire of:

• Answers-In-Genesis type junk-science arguments that sound impressive on the surface, but that trained scientists can rip to pieces (heck, even amateurs like me can see the flaws with them) and were created for the express purpose of sounding scientific enough to fool most people.
• Out-of-context quotations that "seem" to have famous evolutionary biologists completely denying that evolution has occurred or is possible, never mind the Darwinian mechanism for it
• Gee-whiz ID god-of-the-gaps arguments that because the writer and a class of high-school students can't show how something occurred, that the only alternative is divine intervention
• Appeals to emotion by denigrating the human predecessors, equating evolution with social ills such as racism or abortion, or political ideologies such as national socialism or communism

Etcetera... the sort of stuff that anyone who's hung around here is used to seeing.

As has been noted, creationists of all stripes would love "equal time" because they aren't going to play by any sort of intellectual rules. They don't have to demonstrate their "theory" (which they don't have.) They merely have to demolish evolution in the minds of the untrained, mostly Christian audience and then what will be left (they hope, by default) is Biblical creationism. Why else would 45% of Americans now report on polls that they believe that the earth is about six thousand years old and that the Garden of Eden is literally true, ie that all life was created by a god in a few days' time? By introducing debate and dissention, proponents of creationism know full well that it is nearly impossible to counter it without telling someone, flat out, that their religious beliefs are incorrect, which is unacceptable in a public school environment. (It strikes me as strange: if the schools taught literal six-day creationism, then they would be calling all religions other than fundamentalist Judaism, Christianity and Islam incorrect. For example: Hinduism teaches that the universe's age is in the billions of years.)

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

tgamble

Who said anything about scientifically credible. They just said "evidence". Nothing about it having to be either scientific or credible.