Link: THE THIRD ESTATE. The link is to a blog post on "Intelligent Design." The "Her" in question is Dr. Brazen Hussy (linked in the left navigation bar under What the Hell Is Wrong With You).
I'm glad there are evolutionary scientists 'out there' explaining their position, but it must be galling to have invested so much of your life in such a field, and then have to explain yourself to the evolutionary equivalent of flat earthers. To quote Dr. Brazen Hussy, "I mean, damn."
Just this morning I heard an update on the radio concerning the Kansas State Board of Education's possible re-write of the state's science guidelines. Some homeschoolers used/use schools-teaching-evolution as a reason for homeschooling, but if I lived in Kansas, and wasn't already of the homeschooling persuasion, the possible change in science teaching guidelines would have me looking for an exit sign in the school hallway.
Even with my non-scientific background, I can't understand why the pro-IDers can't understand how science is based on testability. No, scientific testing doesn't have a perfect track record, but that's part of the point. You keep testing. That's science. It's like permanent curiosity: what's next? There is no final answer.
If 'some-of-the-generic-you' think that live critters are too complex to have arisen through evolution and that portion of 'some-of-the-generic-you' wants to include that in a science class, then 'some-of-the-generic-you' would use the scientific process to determine that, not a deus ex machina.
A science class can't bring in a supernatural being, because supernatural means outside of nature and even 'some-of-the-generic-we' can't scientifically include something that can't be scientifically determined. If something can't be scientifically determined, it doesn't belong in a science class; a philosophy class yes, but not a science class.
Come on, people, this isn't rocket science.
Comments