Nick Matzke posted Entry 2708 on November 8, 2006 02:46 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2700

There has been a lot of competition, but here is one of the silliest things I’ve read this week on the ID blogs:

And who is Leshner to judge what will promote science?

In case you didn’t know, Alan Leshner is the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #143383

Posted by KL on November 8, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Ooooohh the arrogance..

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

Comment #143386

Posted by Aerik Knapp-Loomis on November 8, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

Laugh, Cry, fart, whatever. Any melo-dramatic gesture will do. And not just the arrogance of

And who is Leshner to juedge what will promote science?

, but also the cliche title. “Idea whose time has come.” Lame!

Comment #143389

Posted by Coin on November 8, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

I find interesting here that the guy objects to the “a narrow religious agenda” label.

But he doesn’t object to the idea ID is a religious agenda.

He just objects to the idea it’s a narrow one.

Hm.

Who’s Jonathan Bartlett again?

Comment #143413

Posted by infamous on November 8, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

“What Leshner and others like him want is to control how science is defined…”

I hate that argument. The reason ID shouldn’t be taught in science classrooms as an alternative to “Darwinian” evolution is because we don’t need an alternative!

Comment #143414

Posted by infamous on November 8, 2006 8:06 PM (e)

“What Leshner and others like him want is to control how science is defined…”

I hate that argument. The reason ID shouldn’t be taught in science classrooms as an alternative to “Darwinian” evolution is because we don’t need an alternative!

Comment #143420

Posted by MarkP on November 8, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

Isn’t it interesting that those most interested in redefining science are the ones that lost fair and square, and badly, on the battlefield that is “science” as it is defined today?

I suggest that if you really think you are onto a superior way of forming and testing our theories (snall “t”), rather than play equivocation games with “science”, invent a new term to describe your superior epistemology. Let “I-witnessed-it-ism” do battle with science fairly. Let “God-told-me-so” take on science openly. Let “Explanatory-filterism” stand face to face with science. Mano a mano. Thunderdome baby. It’s the only honest way. You are not science. You think you are better than science. So prove it. Demonstrate your superiority through accomplishment. Advance human knowledge. Then write books about it. Then fight to get it into the school curriculum. Not before.

You’ve got it backwards, which is why you keep losing. Leave the term “science” to those of us that like it the way it is.

Comment #143424

Posted by infamous on November 8, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

“Thunderdome baby.”

That’s hilarious.

Comment #143451

Posted by k.e. on November 9, 2006 12:40 AM (e)

“Thunderdome baby.”

That’s hilarious

Except for IDists it’s “rugrat sandpit kings, of the kindergarden” complete with diapers and soothers (big ones)….lots of noise until nap time.