|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2006 : 14:30:10
|
One of the larger institutes have stated that Intelligent Design as a "science" is not ready to be taught in school. I'm not sure if that was The Discovery Institute.
And if my memory serves me, they sent a lawyer to the Dover(?) trial where he said something similar to the above.
Can someone please refresh my memory, and provide me with some links?
I'm debating a few creationists at a forum set up by the Swedish Television. I was thinking of a sneaky flank attack: Not even DI wants ID taught at school (yet). 
Edit: I'm asking because I'm at work, and don't have the time nor opportunity to resarch it presently.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/02/2006 14:31:14
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 16:06:09 [Permalink]
|
Paul Nelson, an ID activist, has often pointed out ID's failure to develop any sort of research program. Heck, they don't even have a theory yet.
quote:
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
In February, after the Dover decision killed ID in its tracks, Ed Brayton posted about the Discovery Institute's latest strategy of only "teaching the controversy" around evolution, not ID itself.
ID's Latest Trojan Horse Strategy
Regarding a Michigan bill that would adopt ID's new "critical analysis" approach to evolution, Brayton quotes Casey Luskin:
quote:
Clearly this [new bill's] language has nothing to do with intelligent design and would simply bring scientific critique of theories taught in the classroom, and makes absolutely no mention of teaching intelligent design or any form of a "replacement theory" for those currently-taught theories that are being critiqued...Some Darwinist educators apparently felt the best way to protect dogmatism and one-sidedness in science education was to inflame False Fears that Palmer's bill would bring in the teaching of intelligent design.
Yet, presciently, Judge Jones already anticipated such a tactic in his Dover ruling: quote:
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/02/2006 16:10:29 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
