"Show how you arrived at your conclusion."

[elfs]

Well, I have now seen the next stage in the ongoing evolution of creationism. Forget "intelligent design," forget "teach the controversy," what we have now is a campaign for The Freedom of Speech on Evolution. It's all about "academic freedom" in the classroom now, nevermind that the geocentrists and astrologers are just as valid in their arguments as the intelligent design movement.

To see the subtlety of the position, consider a recent response to Patricia Princehouse's request that the ID people "put up or shut up.": "Discovery and its fellows are delighted to debate Dr. Princehouse and/or Kenneth Miller or whomever and want only to do so in a neutral forum with reasonable and MUTUAL agreements on topic, location, timing, and the other modalities associated with civilized debate."

But science is not determined by face-to-face debate. It is determined by the preponderance of evidence and by the meticulous collection of inferences to determine the likelihood of a given position being validated or invalidated. A two-hour debate is not the appropriate forum for such a proceeding; experience has shown that scientists are not fast thinkers or slick speakers, and frequently fumble when confronted with the slick, well-practiced talking points coming out of the mouthpieces from the Discovery Institute.

So now it's all about free speech and academic debate. As always, when scientists demur to asking about science in the way science is done, the DI and other IDists will be able to claim that scientists are "afraid of the controversy." To which we must say: bullshit. Really. Put up or shut up. Or, as we say in the academic community: Show Your Work. In the meantime, don't try to teach intelligent design to my kids, or I'm going to insist on my free speech rights to teach evolution in your pulpit.

Comments

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

You have, of course, seen the classic math cartoon of the blackboard with "and then a miracle occurs" in the middle of the equation?

Heh.

[solarbird]

Of course, the horrible thing is that they think that's real. Check out these excerpts from the Dover case about how they intend to rethink everything from an "Intelligent Design" standpoint if they ever win:

William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (5:32-37 (Pennock)); P-341 at 224 (“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.”).

That's from the judge, in his ruling.

Oh, hey, Elf, here's some good news - the local prosecutor is seeking to press perjury charges!

Oh, Darwin's too CHICKEN to climb into this ring! OOH YEAH

[bikerwalla.livejournal.com]

It's like the worst of Pro Wrestling and presidential debate, all rolled into one.

I blame Crossfire and The O'Reilly Factor.