[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500, Robert Bradbury  
<robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> If the people on the list are immediately lumping together 'creationists'
> with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank  
> conducting research on technology, science and culture, economicsand  
> foreign  affairs" (from the Discovery Institute home page) then Ithink  
> motivations for spreading FUD need to be examined.  I would alsonote as  
> an aside that  the stated activities of the Discovery Institutewould  
> seem to be something the Extropy Instutute could support andit sounds  
> like it involves many of  the discussions which take placeon the Extropy  
> Chat List.

The Discovery Institute is and always has been an adversary of those who  
want to keep religion out of the science classroom.

It was the Discovery Institute that came up with the "wedge strategy".  
According to this doctrine (and you can be sure they are fond of their  
doctrines) they should seek to "wedge" Intelligent Design into the science  
classroom by arguing that science educators have some kind of ethical  
obligation to "teach the controversy".

Problem is, among most biologists there is no real controversy. Most  
biologists and other scientists consider ID to be pseudo-science or  
religion. So the Discovery Institute and other supporters of ID keeping  
stirring the pot as much as possible, in the media and with their  
conservative church affiliates and political representatives, apparently  
to create the *illusion* of real scientific controversy.

A valid scientific theory worthy of being taught to impressionable young  
minds goes through many years if not several decades of rigorous testing  
and peer-review before it makes into science textbooks. These people are  
trying to bypass that process.

-gts