It's so disconcerting when you folk start asserting *ought* and castigating those who fail at the asserted ought.

Why, next thing you know they'll be insisting on *norms.* Gasp!

I should be more clear. You may certainly take personal exception to anything at all as you desire, with or without rational reason. However, it certainly seems as though you consider this "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)" to be a bad thing, as though it (assuming for the nonce that what we're talking about is something more serious than "disagrees with *my* world-view, therefore anti-intellectual") violates some sort of *oughtness.* It certainly seems as though you think (and all but insist) that everyone else who reads this blog should also take exception to this asserted "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)"

Is this the case? Have I understood, at least the general thrust of your concerns?

And if so, on what grounds? Why should I, or anyone else, care one whit about the (at this point, purely hypothetical) *oughtness* or its seeming violation by the "Anti-intellectualism [which] is still rampant (at least in some parts of the US …)?" Is this *oughtness* objective? Is it binding on all persons at all times? And how do you know this? Where does it come from? What is its basis? What is its claim over anyone as an *ought?*

I had thought you were a 'modern evolutionary theorist,' a Defender Of Science And Democracy And All That Is Good And Right And True. It's so disconcerting when you folk start asserting *ought* and castigating those who fail at the asserted ought. What's next? Will you soon refer to someone with "backward" views as a "knuckle-walker," as though one ought not be a "knuckle-walker?"

I can only assume that by anti-intellectualism you mean those opposed to using their intellect. Why should anyone accept that your belief in this regard is in any way, shape, or form itself rational and not anti-intellectual?

No, I'm specifically referring to this sort of mindless anti-intellectualism, and the broader contempt that some people have, for whatever reason, for higher education.

Anti-intellectualism is still rampant …

I can only assume that by anti-intellectualism you mean those opposed to using their intellect. Why should anyone accept that your belief in this regard is in any way, shape, or form itself rational and not anti-intellectual?

An evolutionary situation apparently not true of biology, which still has Charlie's mouldy corpse in a glass coffin in the Holy of Holies, guarded by axe-wielding dwarves that look a lot like PZ Myers. It would be funny in a Snow White sort of way if it weren't so danged frustrating.

2. Why are [ID critics] always injecting theology into science? I don't get it, honestly. You may be personally afraid of theology, and some theologians may be personally afraid of science. But who the hell cares, outside your little clubs?

Sure, they're just fallacious strawmen, but all they serve is to get my adrenaline pumping and encourage me to lay out the anti-religion rhetoric. What does one do when confronted with such people? Ignore them, so they can criticize me and other science-types behind our backs, or address their issues and possibly raise my blood pressure to the point where I let an insult or two slip.

… Sigh… I do hope I've maintained my composure, but respect, honesty and civility are a two-way street. (oh, and thanks for the opportunity to vent! :neutral:)

In their attempt to defend science, critics might very well end up doing more damage to it than creationists could ever have done.

I think I've read you making that point elsewhere, and it's a good one. As much as I might enjoy reading PZ for myself, you could make a very good case that he fans the flames far too often. I'm sure that you're well aware that there are many people out there who just want to tell them (Dawkins, most of all) to just shut up.

But regarding them - if we as "pro-science"-types are to ignore the creationists pushing for "teaching the controversy," why do the IDers get a free pass at getting pissed off at the atheistic ideologues like Dawkins? Aren't both just opposite extremes that have little weight when it comes to more mainstream opinions?

"The next generation's understanding of science, and biology in particular, is at stake - potentially impacting the future of medical and ecological progress and innovation."

But we aren't talking about scientists explaining their research to the public, but about scientists using the authority of their profession to weigh in on scientific subjects beyond their profession, or on non-scientific issues of public policy or religion. I enjoyed Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful because he's writing about his area of expertise, namely evo-devo. Contrast this with Dawkins using his title of "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" to tell his readers that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse, or that religion is the cause of every evil in the world. In fact, I have it on good authority that NCSE has a policy that evolution-related public statements should be vetted by them first, to avoid embarassing situations like 38 Nobel Laureates contradicting a popular ID critic talking point. But if scientists start using the tools of politics, such as reading manuscripts carefully crafted by lobby groups, the public might start to treat scientists like politicians. And we all know what the general perception of politicians is. In their attempt to defend science, critics might very well end up doing more damage to it than creationists could ever have done.

"I recall that neither you nor Mike are supportive of the "teach the controversy" legislation in many states, but there are a lot of IDers out there who are."

Yes, there are lots of people who want to have a say in how their tax dollars are spent, and that causes problems since any decisions made will influence everyone else. But motivation doth not threat make. As a look at the news at NCSE's homepage will show, attempts to influence science education have been pretty consistently smacked down.

Ed Brayton had a post a while ago that I have been unable to find since. It presents an argument that goes something like this: Any piece of legislation messing with science education will be supported by politicians trying to score points with their religious constituents, and they will couch their support in rhetoric about "standing up for Genesis" or "letting God back into school". When the case goes to court, these statements will be used to show that the bill was religiously motivated, as was the case in Dover. The politicians have no actual interest in seeing the bill enforced - "We tried, folks, but the ACLU and those activist judges wouldn't let us. That's why you have to vote for us next year, so we can keep fighting the good cause." - and will therefore have no incentive in making the bill look secular. No matter what new strategy the Discovery Institute comes up with, it'll have to go through the politicians, and they're playing a different game.