I'm not sure what to clarify. Both sentences are independent statements of fact. I'm not sure how two facts should be expected "flow" one from the other. Both statements rebut different parts of the claim that ID and/or creationism is not a threat to science. After more than 100 attempts to shut down the teaching of evolution, any claim that such things don't occur is simply uncredible. (It's also incredible, but that's a separate discussion.)

Ah, so. I guess it was the fact that you didn't separate your sentences to differing antecedents, but presented them as a flat point-counterpoint that led me to think you meant me to read them as dependent. Now you say they are not. That's fine.

Now, would you care to offer your evidence that ID has logged more than 100 attempts to "shut down" the teaching of evolution? You used an "and/or" in this dependency, but I won't assume you mean these separate positions to be dependent. Since in my experience, they're not. And you are in the habit of asserting dependencies and then pretending that's not what you meant when someone notices the dependencies are fallacious.

Similarly, with no attempts by science to shut down creationism, it is quite clear that there is no revenge-like reciprocity from the science end.

That's nice to know. Not that I ever asserted there was a "revenge-like reciprocity" from the science end. Discounting you and others claiming to play scientists on internet message boards and blogs, that is.

If you wish to expand that statement, it would also be accurate to note that no scientist has tried to ban creationism teaching. The only requirement is that what is taught be science. Oddly, creationists and IDists refuse to walk through that open door and take the steps necessary to establish their stuff as science.

Well, I'm sure "Creation Science" advocates consider their interpretations of evidence to be scientific. Questions there - as elsewhere - hinging on a priori assumptions about the nature of that which is being studied. "Science" is just the systematic study of phenomena to amass a body of knowledge about them. There are lots of kinds of knowledge, and many ways to interpret evidence accumulated. There's even debate about what constitutes a phenomenon, such that it can be examined.

So while I might concede that "Creation Science" qualifies as science, I would not consider it mainstream science or even acceptable science by current a priori assumptions required for theoretical purposes by science in the fields of evolutionary biology.

If such classes are offered, I have no problem with them falling under the overall directorship of science departments. But they'd have to be relegated to the philosophy/history subheading, as 'alternative' - thus not mainstream - science. Under this hierarchy even astrology and cold-reading could be taught within science departments. There's a huge, ever-growing and very lucrative professional market out there in the real world for astrologers and Psychic Friends.

Then again, perhaps such things as cold-reading belong in psychology departments. I can see the logic on that - more an art than a science. Either way, none of it's a real threat to almighty 'Science' as dominant consensus paradigm/theoretic. Since you say that scientists have never tried to ban the teaching of alternative views anyway, what's your problem with it now?

Joy said:

Sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1, even by tortuous routing, because the objects are entirely different. You can't apply the sentence 1 object "“ "˜teaching' "“ to sentence 2 and hope to be credible. And you can't apply the object of sentence 2 "“ "˜research' and "˜publishing' "“ to sentence 1 either. I'd like to say the argument is fallacious, but it doesn't make enough sense to qualify.

Please clarify.

I'm not sure what to clarify. Both sentences are independent statements of fact. I'm not sure how two facts should be expected "flow" one from the other. Both statements rebut different parts of the claim that ID and/or creationism is not a threat to science. After more than 100 attempts to shut down the teaching of evolution, any claim that such things don't occur is simply uncredible. (It's also incredible, but that's a separate discussion.)

Similarly, with no attempts by science to shut down creationism, it is quite clear that there is no revenge-like reciprocity from the science end.

If you wish to expand that statement, it would also be accurate to note that no scientist has tried to ban creationism teaching. The only requirement is that what is taught be science. Oddly, creationists and IDists refuse to walk through that open door and take the steps necessary to establish their stuff as science.

The animal rights movement prevented both Cambridge and Oxford University from building new research centers. Can you link to the essay where Dawkins (or any other prominent critic of ID) has criticized this? While you're at it, why not link to some of your criticisms on an animal rights forum or blog?

Maybe he's or they're like you and don't want to double the numbers of their opponents?

Where the decline has been has been in science disciplines outside of biology. In fact, the ones who have a good pulse on the issue, felt the question of Darwinian evolution was largely irrelevant to technological and scientific advancement.

Cowardice, Creationism and Public Education

I would further argue that Ken Miller was right in saying that the prevailing climate is alienting the general population. And alienating the general population implies alienating those who would otherwise be interested in science. This kind of climate of hostility toward design sympathetic students is alientating a large segement of the population from the study of science. That is a shame. The threat is not only undetectable, it is non-existent. The threat is that the orthodoxy getting in the way of large numbers of enrollment by otherwise interested students.

I will say on a happy note, tonight I met another bio major, a devout creationist, a senior at one of the nation's top schools in marine biology. Thankfully she didn't let the anti-Christian, anti-ID environment deter her from progressing in a science career.

But the threat of her career as a future scientist is detectably seen in the prevailing climate, and her career is not threatened by the IDists or Creeationists, but the Darwinists. Her genetics professor said outrightly at the beginning of class, "you can't learn the material in this class if you approach it from a Christian perspective." What jerk of a professor, imho. How many gifted students has that kind of attitude turned away. That attitude is a real threat to the progress of science.

It is my understanding that Dr. Wells is a professor of Cladistic Sedimentology, Sedimentary Environments and Vertebrate Paleontology. Thus does not fit under the "woefully unlearned" heading. I have detected no inconsistency in his criticism of ID (though some of his criticisms are themselves inconsistent, but that's a different issue), so I wouldn't say he's a "closet creationist" either.

I merely mentioned my surprise [relatively speaking, since nothing die-hard DarwinDefenders say would seriously shock me] that he displayed so little rationality with the "re-education camps" comment, and less rationality by not backing off when given the opportunity. I've come to expect such hyperbole from foreign DDs, but here in the US of A such histrionics are incredibly self-defeating.

"…More than 100 times in the past 80 years creationists/IDists have asked state legislatures to criminalize, outlaw, ban or dilute the teaching of evolution. Not once [in the past 80 years] has any scientist asked a legislative body to ban creationism research or publishing."

Sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1, even by tortuous routing, because the objects are entirely different. You can't apply the sentence 1 object - 'teaching' - to sentence 2 and hope to be credible. And you can't apply the object of sentence 2 - 'research' and 'publishing' - to sentence 1 either. I'd like to say the argument is fallacious, but it doesn't make enough sense to qualify.

Please clarify.

Where do you guys get the odd idea that animal rights nuts don't get any criticism? Is ID as much a virus as creationism, so that once one has it, no fact comes through accurately?

The animal rights movement prevented both Cambridge and Oxford University from building new research centers. Can you link to the essay where Dawkins (or any other prominent critic of ID) has criticized this? While you're at it, why not link to some of your criticisms on an animal rights forum or blog?

PETA and ID advocates are on the same side of the issue"”I think it's fair to say PETA is a bit more radical and offensive, but the aims are similar, to undermine science. Motivations may differ, but the goal is the same.

It doesn't look like you read my blog. I'm not talking about "goals." I'm focusing on results. So let's look at your list:

Dover, Pennsylvania's school board has a policy which orders teachers to teach nonsense. Teachers refused to comply, and probably sensing they'd pushed it too far, the board agreed to have hired readers make the statement for the board at the beginning of evolution units. It's in the courts.

I confess that I have not followed the events associated with Dover, PA (population "“ 1878). But this is in the courts.

John Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution, and jailed briefly. He was convicted, and though the fine was reversed (for violating a constitutional provision that it be no more than $50, when a $100 fine had been imposed), the law making evolution teaching a crime remained on the books until 1967, 42 years.

Scopes?! You have to resurrect ancient history to make your point?

Okay, so you are saying America became a leader in science, even putting a man on the moon, when it was illegal to teach evolution in the schools? How did that happen?

In one of the wild excesses attributable to John Ashcroft's tenure as U.S. Attorney General, a professor at Texas Tech University was threatened with criminal prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department in 2003 for requiring that students asking for recommendations to medical school demonstrate that they understood evolution.

This can't be correct, given that Dr. Dini still has this requirement as seen on his web page.

Dini got into trouble not because he required his students to understand evolution, but because he expected them to affirm and accept it.

School districts in Texas have been required to edit out even the word "evolution" from curricula.

You'll need to provide some documentation for this one.

Research cuts have been across the board. But if you were to methodically work your way through the major universities in most states, you'd find researchers who will tell you that they fear for their grants if news got out that what they really do is research in evolution.

LOL. This has to be the most stupid claim I have heard this year. Mysterious researchers afraid to let anyone know they do research in evolution? Er, how do they publish their results?

No, it's not yet as bad as it was in the Soviet Union when Lysenko conducted his pogrom against Darwin and Darwinian theory. In this case, even a hint of Salinist doctrine should wake us up, however.

Ridiculous. Now, why not answer the questions in my blog? They are simple yes or no answers.