That criticism is a fair representation of modern evolutionary theory because it criticizes a version of evolutionary theory noone adhere's to.

Ah. That does it, Aagcobb. I guess I got off track thinking that the vast majority of biologists, including also Darwin, could without hesitation sign a statement calling for criticism of even the version of evolutionary theory to which they did, actually, adhere.

Was Andrea Bottaro correct when she posed on Panda's Thumb:

But then again, I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of the statement's current signatories, ignorant as they seem to be of the claims of evolutionary biology, don't even know that what they signed is a fair representation of modern evolutionary theory that could have been easily signed by Darwin himself

?

Or are you correct when you said:

If I were a biologist and I was given a petition to sign announcing my problems with a version of evolutionary theory which noone adheres to, I would probably want to find out why it was being circulated

…

I'm having trouble reconciling these two perceptions of the DI statement.

Don't you think the glaring "signability" of the DI statement highlights the social/psychological dynamic which blocks biologists from signing it, though? This has always been MikeGene's point"¦that something other than "science" is going on over there, too.

If I were a biologist and I was given a petition to sign announcing my problems with a version of evolutionary theory which noone adheres to, I would probably want to find out why it was being circulated before signing it, and when I found out what the DI's agenda was, I definitely wouldn't sign it. So in a way, you're right; the desire not to be misrepresented by the DI is something other than science.

Thats certainly an intriguing strategy, Lutepisc. I could see the NCSE posting the DI's petition signed by the Steve's, and explaining the bogusness of the DI's position. Noone would care about my signature though; I'm just another damn lawyer.

Don't you think the glaring "signability" of the DI statement highlights the social/psychological dynamic which blocks biologists from signing it, though? This has always been MikeGene's point…that something other than "science" is going on over there, too.

Sternberg has a long history of working with creationists. I'm sceptical that a guy as intelligent as he is has no idea what the DI is doing.

Another one of the signers is Stanley Salthe, biologist at Columbia University. Is he also a creationist?

No, he's an atheist, but he says he doesn't think much of IDism, either.

Why not get the ball rolling by adding your name to the list, Aagcobb?

Thats certainly an intriguing strategy, Lutepisc. I could see the NCSE posting the DI's petition signed by the Steve's, and explaining the bogusness of the DI's position. Noone would care about my signature though; I'm just another damn lawyer.

I'm certainly not like Darwin.

I'm sorry to hear that, Mike. It would make the world more interesting if there was someone actually working on developing a theory of ID.

Would you, as the attorney for Dryer et al., privately wince a little and wish such a statement was not on the records?

If, in your hypothetical, I was trying to defend them against a charge of being close minded to ID, I would prefer that those statements didn't exist. Of course, I don't have to defend them against that charge, since there's nothing particularly wrong with being close minded to ID. Eventually, you have to quit beating a dead horse and get on with what works. Certain ideas have had their day and lost out to better ideas; until compelling evidence to the contrary emerges, there is no particular reason for scientists to keep an open mind about ideas like ID, astrology, alchemy and other such notions.

"Remember the basic rule of the critics: If you take ID seriously, you are either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by religion."

I don't think any of those things prevent an individual from doing science.