RE: Behe testimony at Dover trial

--- Denyse O'Leary <oleary@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> "
> So, where is this peer-reviewed literature
> supporting the new,
>
"so-important-we-have-to-get-it-in-the-high-school-texts-now"
> theory of
> intelligent design?
>
> And are any "serious scientists" outside of the
> Discovery Institute truly
> consulting it?"
>
> Fyi, the Discovery Institute does NOT support
> teaching ID in the schools.

Interesting strategy. Seems that Behe was not advised
of this? But that is not what they say, IF you really
read their statements carefully

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

They do not support states _mandating ID_ but they
surely want to teach the 'controversy', a typical
backdoor approach to ID, which, lacking positive
contributions has focused on the gaps in our knowledge
to hide its designers.

> They maintain only that it is not unconstitutional,
> a different matter.

So in other words there is no science to be taught,
but it's not illegal to teach this? Despite the fact
that ID is scientifically vacuous and religiously
motivated?

Could Denyse shed some light on this elusive
scientific theory of design the DI and ID proponents
are talking about?

> I
> sat in on a press teleconference a few weeks ago
> where they made that clear.
> They are doing damage control in Dover.

No kidding. Although I am not sure why they hired
Luskin for this job :-) Check out evolutionnews.org
for some zingers...
Received on Thu Oct 20 20:57:44 2005