PZ Myers posted Entry 2982 on March 14, 2007 07:01 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2972

Dave Thomas has written an op-ed opposing a bill in New Mexico that would promote Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom under the guise of academic freedom. This is a standard ID game; carefully word the bills so that they refer vaguely to some evidence that doesn't exist, so that they can pretend they are asking for equal time for the same category of scientific story when it is actually a case of promoting the guesswork, handwaving, and religiously-motivated biases of the creationists to have equivalent status with the evidence of scientists.

Casey Luskin is on the job, though, and he tears into Thomas's op-ed … or rather, he tears it into little pieces and rearranges the words until he's got a pastiche he can criticize. It's a shameful performance that puts the dishonesty of the Discovery Institute on display.

Continue reading "Luskin and the New Mexico creationists" (on Pharyngula)

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 #165404

Posted by Dave Thomas on March 14, 2007 10:22 AM (e)

Thanks, PZ. I guess I’ll have to see what Luskin is up to. I wonder if he ever saw his toon.

Cheers, Dave

Comment #165583

Posted by Frank J on March 15, 2007 10:10 AM (e)

Dave Thomas wrote:

We don’t encourage students to “reach their own conclusions” on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences?

Does anyone other than Paul Gross and me see the incredible irony here?

The big news is supposed to be that an advocate of the now-standard ID “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach is exposed as a YEC.

Lemme try this again – and yes I know that I’m making the fatal error of expecting snake oil salesmen to be as reasonable as scientists. Nevertheless, it’s still hard to imagine that anyone who honestly thinks that there is evidence for a young Earth and a global flood would ignore it all, and instead demand the teaching of design or the currently fashionable designer-free anti-evolution canards, both of which guarantee legal troubles. Evidence for young Earth can be taught “naturalistically,” and in geology class, on its own merits, without the legally risky singling out of evolution that could occur in biology class.

But of course there is no evidence for a young Earth, and all but the most hopelessly compartmentalized YECs must know it. So YECs, OECs, and IDers cover up their irreconcilable differences and politically unite under a “big tent.” But after Dover, that’s old news, and additional examples like these should generate a big yawn. What is still a well-kept secret, however, is how far-right now demands the same touchy-feely “postmodern” approach that they complain about when advocated by the far-left.