Coyote
Posts: 21
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
I submitted the following, but it is "awaiting moderation" so don't expect to see it:
| Quote | The problem with ID is that it is simply not science. Its origins are clearly religious, and in fact, a particularly narrow segment of religious belief.
ID came into renewed vogue after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which banned creation “science” from the schools.
Failing to make the grade as a science, ID has been promoted, largely by the Discovery Institute and its herd of lawyers, PR flaks, English majors, journalists and other “scientists.”
Their whole sordid scheme was leaked nearly ten years ago — the notorious Wedge Strategy, but they have continued to follow the plan, pushing ID in the media instead of in the technical scientific journals. The reason? They don’t qualify for the scientific journals because they don’t follow the scientific method. Invoking an unnamed, unverified, and unverifiable deity as the source for natural phenomena is about as anti-scientific as you can get.
And if you, professor, are a closet IDer, hiding your anti-science beliefs until you get tenure, you are following the Wedge Strategy to a “T”. And, in my opinion, being dishonest.
Any affiliation or contact with the Discovery Institute you would like to tell us about? Are you one of their tame Fellows or something?
|
|
