Washblog

The assertion that Intelligent Design is just another scientific theory deserving of a place in our science curriulum with Evolutionary science is particularly pernicious.   That's because, in order to understand that Intelligent Design is religion, not science, you have to know something about science.   And the proponents of Intelligent Design actively work to confuse the public  understanding on the basic principles of science.

Particle Man alerts us to the political games that have played using this debate.  Consider this Santorum amendment to the No Child  Left Behind Act that Maria Cantwell and Paul Wellstone, among others, voted for:  

The amendment says in part, that it is the "sense of the Senate":

where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

On the face of it, this is a pro-science statement. Evidently, it was designed as a subterfuge to entrap scientifically minded legislators.  

Robert Crowther, in a comment on Postman's piece, links to a subsequent Discovery Institute page on this amendment that shows our legislative process indeed looks like it has been abused into order to sneak an anti-scientific world view into our schools.  We can expect more from the same from Mr. McGavick, should we elect him.  

Particle Man:  "Since the Senate is, as noted by David's update, trying to use every legislative trick to get so called, intelligent design into the public school science curriculum, this is a huge issue."

We are in a culture war that threatens our prosperity and even our survival.  Mr. McGavick is on the side of recklessness that puts political game-playing and ideology over preservation of the values that make our country strong.   I'll let Belltowner's comment in the Postman blog be the last word here, cause it so elegantly cuts through the befuddling mess.  In response perhaps to a comment by Anika: ("It's good to see that some people are willing to engage in a thoughtful, civil discourse about the science behind evolution and intelligent design,")  which leads with rational tones into a twilight zone where truth and absurdity are treated as equally valid, Belltowner says:

"How can you "debate" something dreamed up by some radical extremists and written here in Seattle on a napkin?  Let's get real, you can't debate I.D., cause it's a fake issue in the first place."