To those who still think ID should be taught to pre-college students, I suggest home-schooling. In fact, in the long run, that may be the most effective way to get ID into mainstream science and education. Here's how: I think most home-schooled children end up excelling in college. This means they will be tomorrow's leaders in science. Expose them to the concept of ID today, and ID will be a more readily accepted view tomorrow.

I thought you were concerned that IDers were pushing to get ID taught in school. I was just pointing out that I don't see any evidence that this is the case.

It was the babel fish. Wasn't Nick's argument that this would be evidence of design because evolution couldn't explain it?

Anyway, intelligent design don't have to prove itself to the satisfaction of critics like Nick, any more than abiogenesis research has to be proven to the satisfaction of Duane Gish. If intelligent design develops a track record of experimental success, it will be a viable alternative for curious researchers, whether or not the idiosyncratic demands of critics have been met.

If I remember, I think Nick said finding something like that fish in Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy….you know, the one that you could stick in your ear, and it would translate any language in the galaxy for you. Of course, I think it fed off the sound waves, or something. I imagine we could find a Darwinian explanation for it, if we really tried.

But Nick is young. After all, who would have ever thought Antony Flew would have have given up atheism?

However, I don't think ID proponents are the ones who should be trying to get it taught in public schools. All that does is convince the scientific community that we have a politico-religious agenda.

What we need to do is develop ID into a sophisticated scientific program, so that people like Nick will be impressed enough to think it should be presented, even if they disagree with it.

BTW, Hi Nick. Long time, no see. How are things at the NCSE?

You said: "The Big Bang theory was a very radical idea, but not nearly as radical as ID theory."

Depends on what you mean by "ID theory". That a teleological perspective can generate testable hypotheses is a fact. Last I heard it wasn't unconstitutional to teach facts to students in the public schools.

I cannot see how allowing 'ID' into public schools has anything to do with science/scientists being above criticism. These 'teach the controversey' and 'teach the problems in evolution' claims are just fluff. What controversey? That some religiouos zealots don't like evolution, and some of these people happen to have degrees? That is news? That is a controversey? Teach the problems - what problems are these? The distortions in Icons? Hmmm… Maybe teaching using Wells' book might be a good thing afterall - the teacher can use it as an example of how political motivations and religious fervor can make people engage in dishonest and shoddy scholarship…

And what better place to expose the antics of ID propagandists than in public schools!

"Gee, I thought we were in the "Post-Wedge World" where this kind of thing didn't happen."

No one said that activist groups would stop trying to influence public education. The question is how much success they'll have in the long run.

You're with the NCSE. How do you estimate your chances of making this go away?