Bush promotes ID

Monk writes:

quote:

---

Sometimes, on occasion, I get real close to understanding your posts

---

You have to pay very close attention to the capitalization, then march it along a Moebius, mirrored.

jar writes

quote:

---

I certainly would agree that ID should be taught...

​

and would go so far as to suggest that it should be taught in the science classes. Very few subjects would be a better medium to show how totally lacking in foundation a subject can be. ID and Creationism (the classic Biblical kind) are great examples of the worst types of pseudoscience. By looking at them it might help students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. The old examples of the snake-oil salesman are now dated, many if not most students today have never experienced either the medicine man or the carny barker. ID and Classic Biblical Creationism would be better examples of hucksterism as opposed to science and would be ones the kids could actually observe in action.

---

Ah, ubi sunt Mr. Baker and the advanced freshman biology class of 1964!I agree completely, jar. Mr. Baker taught the history and tenets of ToE, then he explained the history and tenets of Creationism. He told us all to go home and think about it, then return the next day prepared to speak our minds.The podium was open: no one was compelled to speak, but nearly everyone did. In 1964, in Indiana, snug in the Bible Belt and the first state to be declared a Republican victory in presidential elections for many decades, one by one we marched up to the podium, and with few exceptions came down decisively on the side of evolution: the consensus was that religous people who insisted there was any real conflict between faith and science were just being willfully thick.There were a few moments of discomfort when Howie the fundamentalist seemed on the verge of frothing, but we got past that alright.I say teach the scientific method, teach the ToE, then teach ID and let it do its worst: it might be the best thing that could happen.That nonsense thrives in the cursory glance, not in close study.

quote:

---

We all know what evolutionists do to editors that publish ID papars, as we saw last year to the editor that published an ID paper.

​

His career is now threatened and maybe irrecoverable.

---

So ID-oriented editors lack the courage to risk their jobs for the truth? And there are reams of original, data-driven research by ID scientists going unpublished as a consequence? I can't find any online, so I conclude the ID publishers don't dare publish them, either.I would expect greater courage from people of faith.Of course, if it is a matter of not risking one's job for a puff piece that contains no real research, that's more understandable.

Martha Stewart Tip of the Day:If you weave coaxial cable across the attic floor, you don't have to wear the caps at home.