quote:
It seems that in some circles, saying a positive word about ID would be like claiming to be pro-Bush at a New York Times editorial staff meeting. For many, the very term ?intelligent design? evokes disdain, disgust, and borders on contempt. For some, it actually crosses over into contempt.
Well, sure.
It's exactly like if a bunch of Flat-Earthers wanted to get their idea taught in public school classrooms as and "alternative" to the mainstream "spherical Earth" theory.
ID is nothing more, at this point, than a molecular-bsed "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
There isn't any positive evidence at all to support it. None.
So, tell me again why it should be taught as science in the schools?
quote:
If only the scientific community would do a better job of explaining to the public at large how science works, and the limitations of the scientific method, the alleged antagonism between science and religion would dissipate.
I agree with this, but only to a point.
When we are hindered from teaching science in public schools by religious anti-science school boards and national textbook selection comittees which are also made up of very conservative Christians, and state science standards are being changed to not require students to understand the underpinning Theory of Biology, it's no wonder people do not understand anything about the Theory of Evolution once they reach adulthood.
quote:
The problem is not public ignorance, but public alienation.
The mauin problem IS public ignorance, and this leads to the alienation, because people are alienated from and fearful of what they do not understand.
Quick, explain to me what the Theory of Evolution is, what it's main mechanisms are believed to be in a few sentences.
Better yet, explain in a few sentences how scientists use the word "theory" and how it differs from the layman's use of the term.
I'll bet you can't without looking it up, and I'm VERY sure that most of the US public couldn't.
quote:
The reason for this alienation is the reluctance of most scientists to be as objective about themselves, their values, their goals, and their intellectual methods as they claim to be about interpreting specific data.
That's bull. The reason for the alienation is that people see science and technology as something that has an increasing influence on their lives, that they are increasingly dependent upon, but that they are less and less able to understand.
If you think that's true about scientists, it's time to put up some evidence for that claim.
More importantly, even if it was true about individual scientists, you need to show that the products of science, the
scientific findings, are invalid because of it. IOW, you need to show that the entire scientific method and peer review system is hopelessly flawed.
quote:
For a variety of reasons...a litany of grievances that is so commonplace it need not be repeated here
No, I think you do need to list the grievances.
Along with this list, you should provide evidence which shows these grievances to be valid and based in fact.
quote:
...a significant part of the general public has become distrustful of those goals, values and methods.
Again, I'd like some evidence for this assertion. Got any reliable stats?
quote:
If they are valid today, they need new validation and not simply reassertion. If they are superstitions, i.e., obsolete assumptions, left over from the recent past of science, they need rejection or revision. And the discussion of all this must be public, else it will carry no conviction to the people who provide the support for science.
Great, you can start listing them here, along with the evidence you have found which supports your view.
™ Version 4.2
