Coalition for Science in Kansas

since this issue relates directly to teachers, don't forget that May 3 is National Teacher Day.

http://www.nea.org/teacherday/index.html

go do something nice for a teacher.

cheers

This all reminds me of an old episode of Law and Order where a defrocked priest leads one of his underlings to shoot an abortion doctor, but yet implicitly admits that he's unable to do it himself.

The ID crowd are, likewise, more than willing to resort to blatantly hypocritical, anti-Christian methods and tactics to further their agenda...they talk about their research program and the "work" of other people (or they resort to distorting the work of others) but yet are apparently largely either unwilling or unable to carry out legitimate, productive scientific work themselves.

Okay, so maybe the parallels aren't exactly 1:1, but they're there, I think.

I just wrote up a little something to send to the Star Tribune (as was requested of me a couple of posts ago!) on why I don't believe Intelligent Design belongs in schools. I don't usually follow the Evolutionist/ Creationist debate too closely, so forgive me if I'm off-base here, or proposing something already practiced.

In writing the blurb to the newspaper, a term occurred to me to use that I don't hear nearly often enough in this debate. The Evolutionists, should, again and again, be calling the Intelligent Design proponents what they are: pseudoscientists. I think that repeating this label will go a lot further than all the rational, detailed debate in the world.

(If you are reminded of the events leading to a certain recent election, then you might see my point about how much terminology and framing matter. Repeat the same well-considered label enough times, and your point gets through...)

Even an ill-educated public recognizes that a pseudoscience is to be avoided, and, well, shouldn't be taught in biology class. They also know the word "pseudoscience", and will emotionally recoil against it, much more than if something is "not science" (which lacks intuitive force.)

I think we evolutionists have gotten hooked and distracted by the details of the argument, and we are losing sight of the main issue, which is the issue of : Is Intelligent Design science? No, it's not. Why not? Well, science consists of the scientific method. What does the scientific method consist of? Well, you start with observable phenomena and you come up with a hypothesis, and you test it... and so on. Since ID doesn't consist of this, it is a pseudoscience.

We really shouldn't have to stoop so low as to defend the specifics. We've got 146 years of modern biology to do that. The issue is, Intelligent Design, like Social Darwinism, like Phrenology, is a pseudoscience, and we need to unite in our efforts to educate the public on this fact. Our task is not to argue about the legitimacy of the findings of our science versus theirs- in fact, doing so has gotten them this far. Instead, we need to simply drive home* the definition of science, and show that their pseudoscience is no such animal.

*Another advantage to this approach is that rather than a pitiful public debate between adults and toddlers, taking the discussion up a notch means the public gets to hear a lesson on what science is, and how science works. It's also much easier for the uninitiated to understand.

"The ID crowd are, likewise, more than willing to resort to blatantly hypocritical, anti-Christian methods and tactics to further their agenda . . . "

Sorry, I know it's more of technicality, but...

...Replace "ID crowd" with "Christians" and/or "God-fearing."

;)

so what is the current consesus as to what effect this "Kansas Kangaroo Court" will have?

will it simply fizzle?

will it totally backfire?

will it have at least some success (ewww)?

... Kansas Kangaroo.. sounds like a bad cartoon character.

Even an ill-educated public recognizes that a pseudoscience is to be avoided, and, well, shouldn't be taught in biology class. They also know the word "pseudoscience", and will emotionally recoil against it, much more than if something is "not science" (which lacks intuitive force.)

What does the scientific method consist of? Well, you start with observable phenomena and you come up with a hypothesis, and you test it . . . and so on. Since ID doesn't consist of this, it is a pseudoscience.

Stephen

This isn't a scientific argument. This is a political argument. ID is a political movement and must be fought in the political arena.

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

--Letter from Galileo Galilei to Johannes Kepler

The battle has been a long one, and the end is not in sight. Change a few words and we are in the 17th century or the 21st.

Your weblog helps so much. Thank you.

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

--Letter from Galileo Galilei to Johannes Kepler

The "battle" has been a long one, and the end is not in sight. Change a few words and you're in the 21st century and not the 17th.

Thank you for your weblog. It means a great deal to me.

Lizzie -- I think you're bang on about the importance of "framing". But it's worth noting that the term "evolutionist" which you used is itself a part of the Creationist/ID bandwagon's so far depressingly successful attempts at framing the debate in their terms. Saying "evolutionist" rather than "scientist" plays into their attempt to portray it as two clashing dogmas rather than science v psuedoscience. A good scientist would dispose of evolution in the (highly unlikely) event that a better theory came along, which of course Creationism/ID isn't.

Posted by Michael I on May 3, 2005 05:54 AM (e) (s) Stephen This isn't a scientific argument. This is a political argument. ID is a political movement and must be fought in the political arena.

so what is the current consesus as to what effect this "Kansas Kangaroo Court" will have? will it simply fizzle? will it totally backfire? will it have at least some success (ewww)?

While the argument to teach ID in science classes may be political, the reasons not to do so are scientific. I think the reasons for not teaching ID as science are best made through scientific argument/proof. If the only way for arguing pro-evolution successfully is political then maybe the ID'ists have a point.

While the argument to teach ID in science classes may be political, the reasons not to do so are scientific. I think the reasons for not teaching ID as science are best made through scientific argument/proof. If the only way for arguing pro-evolution successfully is political then maybe the ID'ists have a point.

— Stephen Elliott

Political/debating trickery should not be used to decide matters in a scientific argument.

Wouldn't this make string theory, the "multi universe" claims and subatomic physics pseudoscience also? At least to some extent.

Political/debating trickery should not be used to decide matters in a scientific argument.

Wouldn't this make string theory, the "multi universe" claims and subatomic physics pseudoscience also? At least to some extent.

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 3, 2005 07:50 AM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott wrote: While the argument to teach ID in science classes may be political, the reasons not to do so are scientific. I think the reasons for not teaching ID as science are best made through scientific argument/proof. If the only way for arguing pro-evolution successfully is political then maybe the ID'ists have a point. The only reason not to teach "intelligent design" in science classes that comes with legal recourse in the USA is that what is being taught is religious. While there are plenty of pragmatic reasons not to teach ID as if it were science, these are consistently ignored by various and sundry politicians. While having the straightforward rebuttal of "intelligent design" claims is necessary (see "Why Intelligent Design Fails" from Rutgers University Press), this on its own is not sufficient to settle the matter. Addressing the socio-political component of the issue is also necessary for the pro-science side. As for "arguing pro-evolution successfully", please visit a library and assess the scientific literature from 1859 onward. Then, assess the proportion of the scientific community that accepts the findings of evolutionary biology. Come to a conclusion.

The Evolutionists, should, again and again, be calling the Intelligent Design proponents what they are: pseudoscientists. I think that repeating this label will go a lot further than all the rational, detailed debate in the world.

"We determined that it would be inappropriate to debate an issue such as evolution with individuals who are merely bringing to table a supernatural answer," Irigonegaray said during an interview. But John Calvert, a retired Lake Quivira attorney organizing the case for intelligent design advocates and evolution critics, called Irigonegaray's tactics "silly" and "all bluff." Calvert also said following intelligent design advocates' proposals is the only way to avoid a legal challenge. "Pedro doesn't have a case. He knows he doesn't have a case, so he's not putting one on," said Calvert, who helped found the Intelligent Design Network. "His client is on trial, and he's not going to have him testify because he can't afford to put his client in the dock."

from FL: You evolutionists, collectively, would apparently rather do labels and such, instead of doing rational, detailed debate.

Lizzie, if you'll notice, was not suggesting the plaintiffs in Kansas use the word "pseudoscience," she was making a general statement about its usefulness and accuracy. While I don't really like the idea of descending to the IDers' level, the word pseudoscience is certainly applicable to ID. However, calling them what they are is NOT enough. We need to say clearly WHY ID is pseudoscience, in at least as many situations in which we use the word. Then, we'll have a distinct advantage. The ID people have ONLY names for us, nothing to back them up. Calling us dogmatic and "materialistic" has no meaning when our side can actually support what we say.

"We determined that it would be inappropriate to debate an issue such as evolution with individuals who are merely bringing to table a supernatural answer," Irigonegaray said during an interview.

FL
Please spend some time researching the history of the many, many debates between scientists and ID advocates. Just on PT alone. Your accusations are untrue,
Scientists debate all time. New info is published and introduced through the journals.
New ideas are accepted in Real science after being tested over and over. GOOD SCIENCE IS NOT A RESULT OF A MAJORITY VOTE.

Are you saying that "evolution" can't be argued on a proof/evidence basis? I do not think you are, but that is what your coment sounds like.

— Stephen Elliott

Wouldn't this make string theory, the "multi universe" claims and subatomic physics pseudoscience also? At least to some extent.

FL: It's tedious to have to say so over and over, but one more time: The only meaningful "debate" is the one occurring on an ongoing basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. All the public opinion polls, kangaroo courts and right wing talk radio circuses can't change that.

It worked for them with a lie, it should work for us when it’s the truth.

That's a nice thought, but the thing about lying is that you can say pretty much whatever you want, but the thing about the truth is that not everyone can be bothered to evaluate the facts. The liars can always trump the truth. Mr. Honest: "I'm sorry but that guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Here, read this 300 page manual." Mr. Liar: "Pay no mind to that bully, I have free cheesecake and magic spells and eternity in paradise!" Sure, Mr. Honest can offer the cheesecake too, but magic spells and eternity is some powerful stuff.

A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. – Herbert Hoover

Yes. Accurate measurement of reproducible observations plus rigorous mathematical analysis of the resulting data plus integration of that analysis with previous observations is the rational core of scientific theory. It is transparently obvious that ID turns this process on its head, reasoning from a priori metaphysical assumptions to assert an hypothesis, then seeking points of evidence to support that hypothesis. It is not so very hard to deduce that the concerns of ID proponents are intrinsically about metaphysics rather than science.

It is because scientists in general turn a blind eye on metaphysical considerations, that Science, the metaphysical entity, can be portrayed as inimical to the natural spiritual aspirations of ordinary people. Is there a proper metaphysics of Science? I think so. Think awesome wonderous mystery of nature, gradually revealing her inmost secrets. It's an inspirational meme that fishes in the sea of belief, while reason sits on the shore cutting bait.

Sure, Mr. Honest can offer the cheesecake too, but magic spells and eternity is some powerful stuff.

I'm not follow this debate very closely, but probably most Americans aren't either. And, I just haven't heard the word "pseudoscience" get linked with ID yet, as I believe needs to happen.

FL: Many creationists talk about the 'controversy' amongst 'evolutionists'.

What is really occuring (daily) is discussion and argumentation about the methods, driving forces, genetic factors, environmental factors, and everything else that influences evolution.

There is almost NO disagreement that evolution, is indeed, a fact (scientifically speaking) all of the so-called controversy is about the theory (scientifically speaking) which explains the fact.

I'll simplify it for you since it appears you have little understanding of the real issues. Imagine a bunch of car bufs arguing about whether the mustang of the pacer is a better car. There's a lot of controversy....but there is no question that the cars exist and are real. :-)

Have you ever been to a doctoral or master's dissertation defense?? It's f*&^in' brutal!! These post docs and profs don't cut ANY slack. If there's a hole in your thesis, they will find it, and rip it to shreds. I've seen it. And then, at the end of the day, they all agree that they need to continue to do more research to try and plug those holes.

If the research leads somewhere else, the whole theory goes out the window. This is what happened when all the xians of the late 1800's started looking at the evidence...creationism went out the window, because the data simply didn't fit.

Cheers.

you know, someone here pointed out the re-Discovery site some time ago, and i think there is a very nice graphic illustration of how creationists think they are "contributing".

This particular site deals mostly with attempts by creationists to change... chemistry! yes, they want to rewrite the periodic table because it is simply "wrong". In reality, it is just a site supporting Behe's lame arguments.

they present a parade of links to scientists who supposedly support the dismantling of the periodic table, and then suggest they have a more "correct" periodic table that should replace it in schools.

at this point, i'm thinking, "hmm, it might actually be interesting to see what a new periodic table would look like, based on any new arguments, regardless of the source." so, i decided to take a gander.

this is what i found:

a link to current periodic table from chemicalelements.com (a nice interactive picture of a current periodic table)

and a link to the "new" table.. which is exactly the same table, but with "stickies" attached that point out the changes that were made to it historically.

it's pretty funny. take a look for yourself.

essentially, it is a complete mirror in small scale of the ID movement. They say we are all wrong, then they say they have something better, but when called to show it... we get a picture of the same periodic table with a "warning" sticker on it.

they even use the same type of "labels" they call mainstream chemists:

"Chemical Periodicitists" and "Mendeleevists"

I think this site is a great example to show the method being used by these folks, and it also clearly indicates that it mostly has to do with politics, rather than even religion.

*sigh*

oop. forgot the links.

well, since the picture itself tells the story, i'll just link you to that:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/per_table.jpg

this picture, by itself, does more to show me what the ID movement is all about than anything.

cheers

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 3, 2005 11:02 AM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott wrote: Are you saying that "evolution" can't be argued on a proof/evidence basis? I do not think you are, but that is what your coment sounds like.

Try reading the comment again, this time for comprehension. Still not getting through? OK, fine. The arguments have been going on for over a century in the scientific community. The evidence has been gathered and debated for that long. There's a lot of it. Visit a research university's library to get some idea just how much. This has convinced the great majority of the scientific community that evolutionary biology is a well-supported branch of scientific endeavor. Not only can evolution be argued on the basis of evidence, that is precisely what has happened. It's been done.

Now that that is settled, let's turn to antievolution. Antievolutionary protest is not grounded in a dispute over the scientific arguments; it is driven instead by socio-political factors. No matter how many times Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research was told that he had his facts wrong, he still brought out the same old discredited points in his subsequent presentations. The evidence being against Gish wasn't going to alter his talking points. Trying to undertake scientific argument with Dr. Gish was a completely fruitless endeavor, though many people gave it a go, including my Ph.D. advisor. Nor do antievolution advocates limit themselves to argument that has some relation to science. They do things like try to redefine science. Or introduce legislation. Or influence regulatory bodies. If antievolutionists had a case, they would convince the scientific community of their points, and the instructional program in K-12 would follow. That's not how it goes down. You see, Stephen, the reason your complaint is so annoying is that it requires a complete inversion of reality. You should be pestering the antievolutionists to make their case to the scientific community on the basis of scientific argumentation. Instead, you are criticizing scientists and those interested in good science education for meeting a political challenge in the political arena. And what is going on in Kansas is just politics.

Posted by Michael Finley on May 3, 2005 11:10 AM Wouldn't this make string theory, the "multi universe" claims and subatomic physics pseudoscience also? At least to some extent. The Nova episode featuring Brian Greene had interviews with a number of physicists who made this point. Appartenly, strings are so small (by comparison, if an atom were the size of our solar system, a super string would be the size of an oak tree) that they may forever remain invisible to science.

Sir TJ- I'm pretty sure the site is a parody. One of their fellows is described as doing research on the pharmacology of sodium azide. Another is named John E Phillipson.

"I'm pretty sure the site is a parody."

ah, you appear to be correct. However, it is easy to see my confusion if you check out the various creationist sites out there. Hell, they all seem like parodies to me.

OTOH, i still think the site is an excellent example of creationist logic, parody or not, and the picture of the NEW periodic table does indeed represent the logic being used very well.

Therefore if the argument has been won on numerous occaisions using scientific arguments then winning this argument should also be possible with the same methods. By the way you do know what my complaint was? A point of science should not be argued using polital/debating techniques.

— Stephen Elliott

the ID camp cares not for science. They only care about getting their views into schools, government, etc. and by hook or by crook they'll do it if they can.

And therein lies the problem, Lizzie. You evolutionists, collectively, would apparently rather do labels and such, instead of doing rational, detailed debate.

— FL

Lizzie, I'm with you 100%!
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience!

I think it would also be be clever (read: nasty) to in the same breath mention other belief systems that most people think are bogus or even laughable.

"Intelligent design--yeah, that's one of those cult things, like UFO abductions or Bigfoot tracking."

It ain't about science, and never was. Politics is the art of influencing public opinion.

Intelligent Design as a scientific theory suffers from its first principle of invoking a supernatural designer to explain the complexity found in biology. The claim of irreducible complexity is a cop out for doing research into the origins of the complexity. Anyone is free to conduct research and work to publish results that they feel supports the claim of irreducible complexity in peer reviewed scientific journals. The only problem is that peers will look very closely at what you state claim is "irreducible" and if they see a way to reduce it, you are sent packing back to the lab. Intelligent Design supporters are failing miserably at conducting this research and to this point they have hardly anything to review. Nobody is denying anyone the ability to conduct this research. Nobody is refusing to look at it. What is happening is that when something like Michael Behe's thesis steps into the ring, it gets no quarter from critical review.

Take a look at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html to see a list of the holes in Behe's thesis.
Unfortunately ID supporters are not content to work within the crucible of the scientific method. When they are told that the research they do conduct is flawed they cry, "Discrimination, there
must be a conspiracy against my ideas!" The scientific method is very discriminating but it isn't a conspiracy against their ideas. Its a conspiracy against all ideas that have no sound support and this is what the ID Supporters can't accept. Their only resort is to attempt to change the rules and try to redefine science. Sadly, they have found an audience in my home state, Kansas, and are now trying to undermine the foundations of science education by demanding that any theory, but especially their Intelligent Design theory, be given equal time as Evolutionary Theory, even though it has not and most likely cannot stand the tests that Evolutionary theory has gone through.

Academics are wise to boycott the "hearings" that the KSBE is planning to conduct this week. There is really no need for these hearings to occur at my expense (I am a Kansas taxpayer.) The forum for this debate already exists, but sadly the ID supporters can not face up to the challenge of the scientific method and peer review. They cower in halls of politics and would rather deceive their way into getting treatment they do not deserve.
The good news is that Kansas high school English teachers still can use "Inherit the Wind" in their classes.

The Intelligent Design Network should be ashamed of the massive waste of Kansas taxpayer money they are creating with this circus. This is money that should go to truly educating the youth of Kansas, but instead they are selfishly creating a charade in an attempt to foist changes to Science standards that only serve to pawn off their religious beliefs as science.
They should also be ashamed of the disservice they are doing to religion.

Intelligent Design as a scientific theory suffers from its first principle of invoking a supernatural designer to explain the complexity found in biology. The claim of irreducible complexity is a cop out for doing research into the origins of the complexity. Anyone is free to conduct research and work to publish results that they feel supports the claim of irreducible complexity in peer reviewed scientific journals. The only problem is that peers will look very closely at what you state claim is "irreducible" and if they see a way to reduce it, you are sent packing back to the lab. Intelligent Design supporters are failing miserably at conducting this research and to this point they have hardly anything to review. Nobody is denying anyone the ability to conduct this research. Nobody is refusing to look at it. What is happening is that when something like Michael Behe's thesis steps into the ring, it gets no quarter from critical review. Take a look at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html to see a list of the holes in Behe's thesis.

Unfortunately ID supporters are not content to work within the crucible of the scientific method. When they are told that the research they do conduct is flawed they cry, "Discrimination, there must be a conspiracy against my ideas!" The scientific method is very discriminating but it isn't a conspiracy against their ideas. Its a conspiracy against all ideas that have no sound support and this is what the ID Supporters can't accept. Their only resort is to attempt to change the rules and try to redefine science. Sadly, they have found an audience in my home state, Kansas, and are now trying to undermine the foundations of science education by demanding that any theory, but especially their Intelligent Design theory, be given equal time as Evolutionary Theory, even though it has not and most likely cannot stand the tests that Evolutionary theory has gone through. Academics are wise to boycott the "hearings" that the KSBE is planning to conduct this week. There is really no need for these hearings to occur at my expense (I am a Kansas taxpayer.) The forum for this debate already exists, but sadly the ID supporters can not face up to the challenge of the scientific method and peer review. They cower in halls of politics and would rather deceive their way into getting treatment they do not deserve. The good news is that Kansas high school English teachers still can use "Inherit the Wind" in their classes.

The Intelligent Design Network should be ashamed of the massive waste of Kansas taxpayer money they
are creating with this circus. This is money that should go to truly educating the youth of Kansas, but instead they are selfishly creating a charade in an attempt to foist changes to Science standards that only serve to pawn off their religious beliefs as science.
They should also be ashamed of the disservice they are doing to religion.

i'm going to have to start including my last name. Too many people like posting simply under "steve". hard to blame them, it's such a great name.

"Science is a code-word for some incomprehensible activity undertaken by real real smart people who speak in tongues but produce antibiotics and wide-screen TV sets and the internet"

er, didn't Al Gore invent the internet?

;)

Re "Wouldn't this make string theory, the "multi universe" claims and subatomic physics pseudoscince also? At least to some extent."

String theory (assuming that's the part of physics meant here) is AFAIK at this point an untested hypothesis. But it's untested because so far it's predictions are beyond our technical ability to test them, not because it doesn't have any. (Or should I say "they" instead of "it" since there are (or were?) a number of competing string models?)

I'm not sure if the multiple universe thing should be called a hypothesis or a speculation. My impression is that it simplifies the assumptions needed for Q.M. (Quantum Mechanics), but isn't testable as yet.

So that this post isn't entirely off topic, I'll agree that "pseudoscience" is an accurate description of ID. Unless of course one considers that the gene pool of a species has at least two of the properties we associate with intelligence - the ability to try new stuff, and the ability to remember results. Unless somebody somehow demonstrates that other aspects of intelligence are actually necessary (e.g., foresight) to "design" something, the term ID if taken literally could be taken to mean that instead of the deliberate engineering idea that I think the ID advocates mean when using the term.

Henry

And therein lies the problem, Lizzie. You evolutionists, collectively, would apparently rather do labels and such, instead of doing rational, detailed debate.

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method.

—

If you haven't been following the story, you've probably at least heard about the case down in (once again) Florida, of the 13-year-old girl (known as L.G.) seeking an abortion. Jeb Bush predictably tried to prevent her from exercising her rights, but suddenly, after a recent court ruling in the girl's favor, he gave up the fight. And what did he say? "Look, if the judge has ruled, it's time to move on."

That's tough talk FL, but this isn't a high school football game, it's academics.

They (ID advocates) are the ones proposing the change in curriculum so it is their duty to show its merits versus 160 years of modern and molecular biology. Try as I might though, no one has been able to produce for me an intelligible ID theory.

We need to say clearly WHY ID is pseudoscience, in at least as many situations in which we use the word.

But IDers, like the creationists before them, have for decades declined the only debate that counts -- the one in the professional scientific arena.

@FL

lol. so you think introducing NON SCIENTIFIC criticisms proposed by IDers isn't teaching ID defacto?

man, are you deluded.

better get off the drugs and back in school.

oh, and btw, you didn't answer the critical question AGAIN.

And that reminds me of something. Are you aware, Sean, that the proposed changes in standards do NOT call for teaching ID? ..... Go here and click on the appropriate places: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork/ . . .

Are you aware, Sean, that the proposed changes in standards do NOT call for teaching ID?

Why Intelligent Design is Pseudoscience, an Essay in 42 Words:
Because it forwards no testable hypotheses, invokes forces that science cannot measure or observe even indirectly, and includes outright distortions like the notion of "specified complexity," which does not even address natural selection or even reproduction yet purports to disprove Darwinian evolution.

Happy, FL? Did I miss anything?

There is no theory of ID. All ID has is various discredited anti-evolutionary arguments. Thereore, teaching those arguments is teaching ID, because (I repeat) that is all ID is.

By the way, thanks to Wesley for making the opening post. We are quite busy here in Kansas preparing for the hearings - I will have to report retroactively when the dust has settled.

By the way, thanks to Wesley for making the opening post. We are quite busy here in Kansas preparing for the hearings - I will have to report retroactively when the dust has settled.

— Jack Krebs

ditto. good luck, Jack.

Re: ID versus quantum cosmogony as pseudosciences

The operative distinction here is that QC is usually only peddled as a nifty idea, which goes well with tested theories of QM, cosmology etc.. ID on the other hand definitely is completely untestable, but pretends not only to be science, but to be some kind of science superior to all current testable (i.e. scientific) models. This arrogance of assumed privileged knowledge is what actually makes ID (or other pseudosciences) so incredibly pseudo.
If IDlers wanted to take a page from QC, they could say that they accepted the going scientific consensus and just thought it nice to believe in somebody pursuing a plan with all this evolution business. But then they would cease to be IDCists and become theist proponents of evolution. Tough luck.

The witnesses A specific schedule of which witnesses will testify has not been finalized, according to the Kansas Department of Education. John Calvert, however, lists the witnesses and their anticipated dates of testimony as the following: Thursday • William Harris, professor of medicine at University of Missouri at Kansas City. Harris led a group of eight members of the science standards committee to issue a minority report that criticizes evolution. • Ralph Seelke, biology professor at University of Wisconsin. • Bruce Simat, associate professor at North Western College, St. Paul, Minn. • Giuseppe Sermonti, retired professor of genetics at University of Perugia, Italy. • Charles Thaxton, co-author of "The Mysteries of Life's Origin." • Jonathan Wells, molecular and cell biologist, senior fellow at Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, and author of "Icons of Evolution." Friday • Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at University of Georgia. • Roger DeHart, biology teacher Oaks Christian High School, San Diego. • Robert Disilvestro, biochemist, nutrition professor, Ohio State University. • Daniel Ely, biology professor. • Jill Gonzalez-Bravo, science teacher at Rose Hill (Kan.) Middle School. • Bryan Leonard, high school biology teacher. • John Millam, theoretical chemist and software developer. • Edward Peltzer, oceanographer, researcher in chemical evolution. • John Sanford, associate professor at Cornell University. Saturday • Mustafa Akyol, spokesman for Islamic organizations interested in origins science. • James Barnham, scholar and writer. • Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. • Nancy Bryson, assistant professor of chemistry at Kennesaw State University. • John Calvert, lawyer and managing director of Intelligent Design network. • Angus Menuge, philosophy professor at Concordia University. • Stephen Meyer, director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. • Warren Nord, professor of philosophy of religion and education, University of North Carolina.

3. Change the definition of science. Current definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." Proposed change: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Explanation: Proponents argue the current definition limits scientific inquiry while promoting a philosophy of Naturalism (or Materialism), because it only allows "natural" explanations. Naturalism allows only natural or material causes to explain the nature and origin of natural phenomena. They view this as a science stopper, given the many non-material aspects of the natural world such as biological "information" and consciousness. When applied to the history of life, this definition eliminates the possibility that some form of intelligence may have played a role, enshrines naturalistic evolution as a dogma, and doesn't allow students to "follow the evidence wherever it leads." They argue the proposed definition, recently adopted in Ohio, opens scientific inquiry while being religiously neutral.

nope. sounds like you are about right to me.

While historical, anatomic, and DNA evidence has made a strong case for evolution, the experimental support for evolution -- those aspects that can be demonstrated in a laboratory setting - has been weak. Moreover, evolution has often been compared to economic theory- excellent at explaining past events, but offering little in the way of prediction. The purpose of my research is to put evolutionary theory on a firmer experimental footing. To do this, I have taken advantage of the most well-studied organism on earth - the colon bacterium Escherichia coli . My objective is to follow the evolution of E. coli for thousands of generations, asking very specific questions about its ability to evolve new functions. Our model strain for this has been E. coli AB1157, a strain with over ten defects in sugar utilization or amino acid synthesis genes. My students and I have put AB1157 under a variety of selective conditions, asking if evolution is able to correct these defects. Our experimental approach is simple: we allow AB1157 to grow under conditions in which mutants that have gained a selective advantage rapidly dominate a population. We grow our bacteria each day, and then transfer 1% of the population to new growth medium the following day. In this manner, we can observe 6.64 generations of evolution each day, over 46 generations per week, almost 200 generations per month, and over 2,400 generations in a year. In 10 years, using this method, we could follow the evolution of a culture for over 20,000 generations, the human equivalent of over 600,000 years of evolution. We have been using this approach since June of 2001. However, our early results were so interesting that we have not followed a microbe's evolution for more than a few hundred generations yet. We find that some genes evolve rapidly, almost overnight; others take weeks to evolve; and one has yet to show any indication of evolution. Our objective is to follow the evolution of several genes for at least a thousand generations, and then use DNA sequencing to determine what is an easy task for evolution, what is a harder task, and what is a task that cannot be done in the time allotted.

Flint says, "But IDers, like the creationists before them, have for decades declined the only debate that counts -- the one in the professional scientific arena." But that's not what evolutionists said regarding McClean vs Arkansas. They were (and are) VERY happy with debates being decided in the courtroom or at the ballot box

— FL

Re "Current definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

Proposed change: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Hmmm. If they don't like the word "natural", why not just drop that word? Though it occurs to me that the given current definition could also be taken to include things like police investigations?

How about
"Science is the human activity of seeking explanations for the way things work in the world around us."

---

Re "Fyi, ID proponent Ralph Seelke's research plan"

That sounds like some good research there. Though it doesn't sound like it has much to do with ID per se. :)

Henry

What a triumphant journey awaits Mustafa Akyol. Kansas taxpayers are footing the bill to bring the Istanbul resident to Topeka as one of 23 witnesses scheduled to testify this week before a subcommittee of the Kansas State School Board in its unorthodox "trial" over science teaching standards. (Fortunately, Akyol happens to be in Washington, D.C., on other business, so Kansans are paying only to bring him across the country, not all the way from Turkey.) Born in 1972, Akyol has a master's degree in history and writes a column for a newspaper in Istanbul. He also has identified himself as a spokesman for the murky Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, a group with an innocuous-sounding name -- it means "Science Research Foundation" -- but a nasty reputation. Said to have started as a religious cult that preyed on wealthy members of Turkish society, the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi has appeared in lurid media tales about sex rings, a blackmail prosecution and speculation about its charismatic leader, a man named Adnan Oktar. But if BAV's notoriety has been burnished by a sensationalist Turkish media, the secretive group has earned its reputation as a prodigious publisher of inexpensive ideological paperbacks. BAV has put out hundreds of titles written by "Harun Yahya" (a pseudonym) on various topics, but most of them are Islamic-based attacks on the theory of evolution. Turkey is a secular country that aspires to join the European Union and boasts several institutions of higher learning on a par with good Western universities. But beginning in 1998, BAV spearheaded an effort to attack Turkish academics who taught Darwinian theory. Professors there say they were harassed and threatened, and some of them were slandered in fliers that labeled them "Maoists" for teaching evolution. In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against BAV for defamation and were awarded $4,000 each. But seven years after BAV's offensive began, says Istanbul University forensics professor Umit Sayin (one of the slandered faculty members), the battle is over. "There is no fight against the creationists now. They have won the war," Sayin tells the Pitch from his home in Istanbul. "In 1998, I was able to motivate six members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences to speak out against the creationist movement. Today, it's impossible to motivate anyone. They're afraid they'll be attacked by the radical Islamists and the BAV." Sayin is well aware of Mustafa Akyol, whom he identifies as one of BAV's many volunteers. (Akyol himself has described his role for the group as that of a spokesman.) The organization's source of funding and internal structure are well-guarded secrets, Sayin says. The Turkish government, he adds, refuses to take an interest, tacitly encouraging the ongoing effort against scientists. "It's hopeless here," Sayin says. "I've been fighting with these guys for six years, and it's come to nothing." As a result of the BAV campaign and other efforts to denounce evolution, he adds, most members of Turkey's parliament today not only discount evolution but consider it a hoax. "Now creationism is in [high school] biology books," Sayin says. "Evolution is presented [by BAV] as a conspiracy of the Jewish and American imperialists to promote new world order and fascist motives ... and the majority of the people believe it."

MSNBC has a new article up about the Kangaroo Court:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7749688/

I heard tell that Ahmanson's name came up during the Kangaroo Court. Anyone have any details?

Kansas taxpayers are footing the bill to bring the Istanbul resident to Topeka as one of 23 witnesses scheduled to testify this week before a subcommittee of the Kansas State School Board in its unorthodox "trial" over science teaching standards. (Fortunately, Akyol happens to be in Washington, D.C., on other business, so Kansans are paying only to bring him across the country, not all the way from Turkey.) Born in 1972, Akyol has a master's degree in history and writes a column for a newspaper in Istanbul. He also has identified himself as a spokesman for the murky Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, a group with an innocuous-sounding name --- it means "Science Research Foundation" --- but a nasty reputation.

BAV has a long history of contact with American creationists, including receiving assistance from ICR. Duane Gish and Henry Morris visited Turkey in 1992, just after the establishment of BAV, and participated in a creationist conference in Istanbul. Morris, the former president of ICR, became well acquainted with Turkish fundamentalists and Islamic sects during his numerous trips to Turkey in search of Noah's Ark (Acts & Facts 1998a,1998b). BAV's creationist conferences in April and June 1998 in Istanbul and Ankara, which included many US creationists, developed after Harun Yahya started to publish his anti-evolution books, which were delivered to the public free of charge or given away by the daily fundamentalist newspapers Akit and Zaman as promotions. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8300_islamic_scientific_creationism_12_30_1899.asp