Well, the IDiots are at it again. They have a recent
victory in Louisiana, where they've veiled their desire to get their pseudoscience into public school curricula, this time based on the idea that IDiots are being denied "academic freedom" in the classroom. In other words, those mean, mean evolutionary biologists don't take us
seriously! It's not
fair! Except they call them "Darwinists" rather than "evolutionary biologists." Makes them sound more cult-like and less scientific, I guess. Ah, rhetoric.
So here's a primer on the issues.
IDiots: We should be able to teach Creationism in public schools!
Reality: No, you shouldn't. It's against the law, and contrary to the establishment clause. See
Edwards v Aguillard for details.
IDiots: But Intelligent Design and Creationism aren't the same thing
at all!Reality: I'm not sure who you think you're fooling. Your rebranding efforts failed pretty miserably when it was proven during
Kitzmiller v Dover that the Creationism and ID movements are the
same movement. You just had to change the name after
Edwards v Aguillard, because that mean, mean SCOTUS determined that theocracy was not in our future.
IDiots: But we're a
Christian Nation!Reality: What a shock that would be to our founding fathers, most of whom were Deists. By the grace of the establishment clause, we are a
secular nation, with a majority
Christian population. This a subtle but crucial distinction, and one that forms the basis for the legal protection of minorities in this country. Saying "we're a
Christian nation" is the moral equivalent of saying "we're a
white nation."
IDiots: It's an issue of free speech!
Reality: Actually, it's not. Hypothesis that have not been rigorously tested within the bounds of the Scientific Method do not belong in high school science class. We don't allow other forms of supernaturalism in the classroom, so don't make the argument that you're "special." Except in the Little Yellow Bus, sense, I mean. But you're free to spout your nonsense on the Internet, in self-published works, or at the Discovery Institute. Knock yourself out.
IDiots: But ID
is science!
Reality: Really? ID is a
negative argument, and thus
unfalsifiable. It's not science, and the only people who think it is are the ones trying to introduce their religious views into the classroom. Want to prove that it
is science? Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal such as
Nature, and try to major in "Intelligent Design" in any accredited, respected biology department. Oh, and legally? It is most definitely
not science. See
Kitzmiller v Dover for details.
IDiots: But evolution is just a
theory!Reality: Yeah, the same way gravity is just a theory. Get your terms right. Implying that the word "theory" means the same thing in a scientific context that it does in every day usage is disingenuous
at best.IDiots: We should
teach the controversy!Reality: What controversy? The
vast majority of people who have the education to understand the key issues believe that ID is
not science. It's only the people with a religious agenda who believe there's a controversy. Not exactly an unbiased agenda.
IDiots: We're being
discriminated against for our religious views!
Reality: Get over yourself. The academic and scientific world is under no obligation to give professional respect to every crackpot idea that comes down the pike simply because it's religiously based. There are plenty of scientists who manage to reconcile their lives of faith and the rigors of science. Just because
you can't doesn't mean a new "branch" of scientific enquiry should be funded.
IDiots: It's a question of
academic freedom!Reality: Not really. If you had a theory that held up to scientific scrutiny, and the science world was trying to "keep you down," you might have cause to complain. But your hypothesis doesn't cut it. And neither do you.
And spare me the tired arguments of irreducible complexity, the origin of the eye, the discovery of transitional forms and anything brought up by ID's bitch, Michael Behe.
All of these issues have been addressed so many times they're no longer even a dead horse - they're a wet spot on the floor. This type of "Lalalala, I can't hear you!" response is just so lame, I don't even want to discuss it.
---------------
Title modified 7/12/008 2:40 p.m.. I changed the name of the is post to more accurately reflect the content. It occurred to me that the title probably implied I considered all the ID idiocy to be part and parcel of the Academic Freedom Law, and that is not the case. I consider the Academic Freedom Laws to be a vehicle of the ID crowd to promote their agenda.