Which ID critic is that?

Did you miss the recent library blog entry by Krauze?

…after all, I'm not like the ID critic who wants to control what others do and think.

Which ID critic is that?

I agree with you. I have no problem whatsoever with them wanting to teach ID = pseudoscience (after all, I'm not like the ID critic who wants to control what others do and think). In fact, we at TT defended Paul Mirecki's right to teach his proposed anti-ID course. Yet the course appears to me as a hasty, emotional reaction to the ID talk they had at SMU a year ago. I'm sure some NCSE-types will eventually step in and help them "clean it up."

What's most noteworthy is that these professors played their hand so publicly and honestly. When they hear "ID" with their ears, we know their minds hear "Retarded Nonsense," "Crap," and "BS." They've now told us so. This is the type of dime-a-dozen closed-mindedness we get routinely from the anti-ID trolls on the Internet. Yet there is another name for such professors "“ peer reviewers.

I can't speak for Mike, but I would answer this way. If their intent is to show that ID, Astrology, Sam Harris's New Age Mysticism, Bill Maher's denial of the germ theory of disease–any or all of these things isnot science, they should say so, professionally, in their course materials, somewhat as an open question. Then they should use the course to substantiate their claims. Instead they, in a mocking tone, include their goals as facts in their materials. It stinks.

I notice that the course does not focus exclusively on ID / Creationism issues - for example they investigate a number of popular folk-beliefs that appear to have no basis in science. Do you feel that some of the other subjects are being unfairly mocked?

The target is ID Willie. By lumping ID together with discredited concepts one makes an indirect inference. It's an old, lowlife debating tactic.

Bradford - will do and I take it you are referring to the UD & DI claims. I don't want to cause hassle with Mike if this is redirecting the topic inappropriately.

Mike, I think you have made a category mistake here: They do not propose to use mockery as a teaching technique, however having applied the standards of critical thinking that they deem relevant, they have concluded that certain topics are worthy of mockery.

To answer your question: It may be appropriate if the subject matter in question is indeed worthy of ridicule. For example, supposing somebody was arguing that new-age crystal-healing should be considered as an alternative to more evidence-based surgery in a busy hospital's A&E ward. The proposer might of such an idea might deserver mockery because the idea is so blatantly contrary to well-verified medical knowledge. I'm sure you can see the funny side of an idea as odd as that?

I notice that the course does not focus exclusively on ID / Creationism issues - for example they investigate a number of popular folk-beliefs that appear to have no basis in science. Do you feel that some of the other subjects are being unfairly mocked?

You are trying to change the topic. Please stick to the topic. Is mocking an appropriate way to teach critical thinking?