Thanks to the news in Kansas, it's getting harder and harder for extremist ID critics to hide their extremism.
Remember all that hysteria about armies of creationists using ID as a Trojan Horse to install a theocracy? I think its time to put that threatiness to bed:
In a landmark vote Tuesday, the Kansas State Board of Education once again adopted science standards regarding instruction in evolution.
The new guidelines reflect an overturn of previous standards, written in part by advocates of "intelligent design," that earned Kansas international ridicule in 2005.
As we move deeper and deeper into the post-wedge world, it gets harder and harder not to ridicule the threatiness that is associated with ID. I'm trying to be respectful here, as I know some people are really sincere in their fear. But at some point, I'm not sure I'll be able to control myself.
Anyway, there is something even better below the fold.
the board has"¦ accepted a new definition of science limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe.
Pigliucci, a professor of Ecology & Evolution and Philosophy at SUNY-Stony Brook, told TechNewsWorld.
"It simply means that science does not (and cannot) deal with supernatural phenomena."
Sure, this is the mainstream position that has been adovacted by the NAS. So what does this mean? When people like Dawkins and Myers insist that science can be used to determine that God does not exist, they are actually advocating a crank position. When they demand scientific evidence of God's existence, they simply advertise their own crackpot understanding of science. In fact, it looks like the typical Kansas student will now have a better understanding of science than Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Myers!
[Pigliucci, BTW, used to buy into Dawkins' crackpot notions about science, but has since admitted his mistake.]
There is, however, one disappointment in the article.
"There is an extremely false idea that evolution and science are atheist," Krebs claimed. "Creationists use that idea to fuel divisive arguments that science and religion are incompatible."
Er,"¦the extremely false idea just happens to be championed by Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Dr. Myers and Krebs knows this. So why does Krebs omit these data points to make it sound like the creationists alone "use that idea to fuel divisive arguments?" I think he should have said, "Creationists, and many atheists, use that idea to fuel divisive arguments that science and religion are incompatible."
But he didn't.