In support of intelligent design

 
A majority of Pinellas County School Board members - including the immediate past president of the National School Boards Association - think that if Florida children are taught about evolution, they should learn other theories on the origin of life as well.

Board members Jane Gallucci, Carol Cook, Peggy O'Shea and Nancy Bostock (shown above, left to right) stopped short of saying that faith-based theories should be included in the state's proposed new science standards, which the state Board of Education likely will vote on in February. The new standards would include Darwin's theory of evolution and do not mention faith-based theories such as intelligent design or creationism.

But all four said such theories should be taught in public school classrooms.

"I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how man evolved and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in," said Gallucci, the immediate past president of the National School Boards Association.

Bostock: "The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out."

Cook: "To teach one as if nothing else existed, I think we're doing our students a disservice."

O'Shea suggested that parents who object to evolution being taught to their children might be able to opt them out of that day's lesson. "I'd probably ideally like to keep it all out of the classroom," she said. "If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?"

See the whole story in tomorrow's St. Petersburg Times and on tampabay.com. Also tomorrow, the Gradebook will provide more in-depth responses from all the Pinellas School Board members on the issue. To see the board members' full remarks, click here.

- Donna Winchester and Ron Matus

Comments

[puzzled]

WE STINK enough in Science. Save religion for church. Hey, why don't I EVER hear these people who want religion in public schools screaming for teaching evolution in church ?

[Republican takeover]

I thought we already STUNK in Science! Look at grade 11 FCAT scores.
Will churches be teaching evolution as well?

[Just Tim]

Intelligent design is not a theory.

Proving it's not a theory is simple. What testable predictions does it make?

The "evidence" for Intelligent Design is always "well the theory of evolution fails to explain this" when the "this" always turns out to be filled by evolution.

Appeals to personal incredulity are not evidence, so saying that you find it hard to believe XXX happened without YYY is meaningless when evidence points to the fact that XXX happens all the time and that there is no proof for YYY. If I said, "I can't believe chocolate doesn't come from brown-cows" then all I should need to see is one iota of chocolate come from any cow other than a brown one. Fortunately, that's where the millions of observations in disciplines from organic-chemistry, to pediatrics/obstetrics, veterinary medicine, genetics and so on, for over 100 years would come in and save the day.

Evolution has hundreds of thousands of successfully tested (and reproducable) experimental outcomes supporting the theory.

Evolution has predicted where transitional fossils should be, and found them where (and when) predicted.

There is absolutely NO scientific aspect which refutes (even marginally) evolution (thermodynamics and complexity studies included!).

There are no holes in evolution.

Intelligent design makes no predictions and therefore has no supporting scientific studies being funded, anywhere.

[mddawson]

Quote: "if Florida children are taught about evolution, they should learn other theories on the origin of life as well."

If you look at what constitutes a "scientific theory" you will find ID does not meet the criteria.

To quote wikipedia "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

It is impossible to test ID as a "scientific theory" as proponents invoke God as the designer and thus outside of the natural world.

ID also fails in that it is incapable of predicting future occurrences. If a designer is responsible what is stopping him giving us wings or the ability to breath underwater? How can we predict the whims of a designer?

As a theory ID is right up there with the ancient Hindu's view that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise. I'm guessing you would not want taught as science. Well ID is the same, it is complete and utter nonsense.

[ioinc]

I love it when people throw out the word 'theory' as if it were a demerit against the theory of evolution.

Do you have the same concerns about modern germ theory of medicine? Do you believe contagious diseases are caused by germs? Should we teach children an alternate theory that these diseases are actually caused by angry witches?

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Isaac Asimov

A good site to get information about this is : http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Drew Smith]

Mover wrote: "the unionized public school system has been selling Darwin's theory as fact for at least the last 30 years."

In science, fact and theory are two different things. Facts are generalized observations. Theories are explanations that explain the facts. Darwin's *theory* of evolution was created by him to explain the *fact* of evolution. You appear to be confusing the two.

Mover also wrote: "since Darwin is still theoretical, alternative theories (also based on faith and feelings), should be included as a chapter in the Darwin study guide."

The facts and theories of evolution are not "based on faith and feelings", but instead upon evidence. What "alternative theories" are there that are *scientific* theories (based upon scientific evidence)?

[Mover]

I'm always amazed at how nasty some people can get when this topic comes up. Then again, there are those who use (seemingly) clever lines to discount views opposed to their own to add some humor to it.

Of course neither moves the debate forward. In fact, it only retards progress.

The facts concerning Darwin's theories on evolution are that they are still theories. Those who abide by it don't know or choose to ignore that fact. They use feelings and faith, rather than science to declare the theory they like to be the correct one. Oh, and I don't really blame them. After all, the unionized public school system has been selling Darwin's theory as fact for at least the last 30 years. That means that everyone who went to public school during that period has had that theory dished out to them as gospel since early childhood.

As for teaching creationism or intelligent design, I don't believe it could be a science course.

However, since Darwin is still theoretical, alternative theories (also based on faith and feelings), should be included as a chapter in the Darwin study guide.

-The inability to prove something wrong, does not necessarily make it right. The Mover

[Paul]

"Polticial" Heh! I invent my own language.

Obviously, I mean:

... using the political process, ...

[Paul]

There is no debate. ID has no relevance to reality and is being pushed as a religio-political agenda by a tiny fraction of nutcases who favor ignorance as a paean to their personally weak and wavering belief systems.

We do not let children choose their own system of math. We do not let children choose how to calculate the Earth's escape velocity. We do not let them choose astrology over astronomy. We therefore, do not let them choose between ID and science. If ID supporters want their silliness taught in science class, they must first take the same path to respectibility that every other branch of science has done. Look up the story of plate tectonics for a better understanding of the process.

ID supporters, knowing that their ideas are intellectually bankrupt and completely divorced from reality and the process and nature of science at the very basic level, prefer to force their viewpoint using the polticial process, rather than the scientific process. There's a reason why 90% of ID supporters are actually lawyers, not scientists.

[Joshua Daniel Martin]

"If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?"

Where were you when Galileo needed you?

[wes]

theres a reason women arent in politics.

About that lack of fossil record of transitional species:
Associated Press
Published December 20, 2007
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/20/Worldandnation/A_not_so_mighty_link_.shtml

About that “lack of fossil record of transitional species”:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/20/Worldandnation/A_not_so_mighty_link_.shtml

Associated Press
Published December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - The gigantic ocean-dwelling whale may have evolved from a land animal the size of a small raccoon, new research suggests.
What might be the missing evolutionary link between whales and land animals is an odd animal that looks like a long-tailed deer without antlers or an overgrown long-legged rat, fossils indicate.
The creature is called Indohyus, and recently unearthed fossils reveal some crucial evolutionary similarities between it and water-dwelling cetaceans, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises.
For years, the hippo has been the leading candidate for the closest land relative because of its similar DNA and whale-like features. So some scientists were skeptical of the new hypothesis by an Ohio anatomy professor whose work is being published today in the journal Nature.
Still, some researchers have been troubled that hippos seem to have lived in the wrong part of the world and popped up too recently to be a whale ancestor.
Newer fossils point to the deer-like Indohyus. The animal is a "missing link" to the sister species to ancient whales, said Hans Thewissen, an anatomy professor at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
Thewissen, who earlier published papers on fossils of what he called the first amphibious whale and the skeleton of the oldest known whale, studied hundreds of Indohyus bones unearthed from mudstone in the Kashmir region of India. From that cache of bones he created a composite skeleton of a 48-million-year-old creature.
The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans. An examination of its teeth showed that the land-dwelling creature spent lots of time in the water and may have fed there, like hippos and whales. Also, the specific positioning and shape of certain molars connects Indohyus to the earliest whales, which are about 50-million years old, Thewissen said.

What is the debate? courts have said time and time again that ID is religion. Public schools cannot teach religion. again were is the debate?

[Brian]

It's amazing how one can distinguish the comments in favor of creationism from the comments in favor of evolution.

I'm not referring to the content; I'm referring to the spelling and grammar.

Pile it on the evidence supporting the notion that ID backing is a mark in the "anti-education" column.

Yeah, let the kids choose.

When would they go to school then?

[Dave]

"To all four of you - I thank you for stating your beliefs. I too believe that both should be taught. But I have noticed that evolution believers are afraid to tell both sides of the story. I say tell both and give the kids a chance to decide.
Posted by: hoshi"

LMAO.. You should look up the definition of Belief's.. Just because i believe in something doesn't make it true. (Do you still believe the earth is flat ? Or that the earth is the center of the galaxy?)

Evolution IS FACT based upon the BEST information available. (See definition of science) And while your at it look up the definition of (Theory)

Seriously.. If i was a parent i would demand that these people were fired for stupidity.

BTW.. Evolutionists are not afraid of debating.. It is the idea of giving you people any credibility for your stupid ideas of a god that makes us not want to talk with you.

Seriously grow up.. Get out of the cult that is religious hysteria.

[Jeremy]

"Don't let 'em con you. Shocking but true: Scientists know more about science than non-scientists."

Nice one Molly, that line made me smile.

I also love how alot of these ID people try the "let the kids choose" approach. Like kids really know whats good for them, might as well let them eat candy for dinner and stay up till they pass out.

[Willl]

I have seen comments every where about why atheists keep bashing others beliefs. But the truth is, we need to if we don't then nothing will change and there will be no debate, religion shouldn't be taught in school. ID was proven to be creationism, with a few changed words.

[Mike]

When you actually learn how things work, and consider silly things like: Genetics, Development, Vestigial organs, Domesticated animals, and the Fossil Record, small incremental steps is really the only way complex beings can come about.

[Mike]

As a student of neruoscience and human physiology I think "the miracle of the human body," which couldn't have evolved is pretty funny. Considering that mammalian embryos develop a set of pronephrons, which serve no function in mammals, and deteriorate after 4 weeks of gestation. They only function they've been shown to serve is in primitive fish. This doesn't sound like the product of a designer.

The school board has a vague, uneducated grasp of science, at best. These are definitely inappropriate experts weighing in on subjects in which they have absolutely no knowledge or personal experience.

Science is a method, not a statement. There are no "conclusions," per se, that exist in science the same way as they do in religion.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a conclusion perpetually looking for a hypothesis.

Why don't they just be honest with everyone and out what they're really after? They want to force Christianity onto children at an early age before they have the ability to fully develop their own opinions separate from it. If not, then why don't they teach all creation theories--not just the Christian ones?

[Pete]

"If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?"

Oh, I dunno just the fact that the 600 billion dollar pharmaceutical industry is applying evolutionary theory in drug discovery research (look up pharmacophylogenomics).

The ignornace of these people is frightening. I guess they want the US to keep failing in science education compared to the rest of the Western world.

[Uberd00b]

Wasn't this all legally finished in Dover? Can they do this?

[spencer]

and parent with scholl age children please show me proof were evolution is proven. if it was proven it would be called a law of evolution

jon -

No it wouldn't. That is not how science works. How many times do you have to be told this?

[Stephen]

Could someone PLEASE tell Gallucci, Cook, O'Shea and Bostock that even Philip Johnson, the original instigator of Intelligent Design, doesn't think that ID (yet) constitutes a viable theory. (I have twice tried to post his own statement on the subject, but Typepad's broken spam filter won't permit it. You can find it on pandasthumb.org, among other places.)

[Gene Goldring]

Hopefully one more group will be added to the list of groups on the Scripps Institute Outreach page. Pinellas County School Board members.

http://www.scripps.edu/florida/communityoutreach

Once they have toured the institute, have them tell us of the benefits of pseudo-science being taught in the public school.

[Stephen]

Could someone PLEASE tell Gallucci, Cook, O'Shea and Bostock that Philip Johnson, the original instigator of Intelligent Design, has recently said:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

If even Philip Johnson doesn't think that Intelligent Design constitutes a theory, if even he says it's not ready for the educational world, then why on earth would anyone else take it seriously for a second?

[Ashley]

Why do I feel like we, as a country, need a refresher course in what the term "theory" actually means? People keep throwing it around, applying it to things that are in no way, shape, or form a theory - or implying that a theory is nothing more than a gut feeling or hunch. Remember the scientific method? I do - learned it in the third grade. Until ID is subjected to the scientific method it doesn't belong in a science classroom - clear enough isn't it?

[Michael]

To clarify my earlier post. There are a lot of closeted atheists. They are in the closet for the most part professionally for fear of losing their jobs. Quite a few hiding the truth from family as well. The reason being is because it is still acceptable in our society to hate atheists and often times openly attack them.

As for welcoming the next wave I was alluding to the fact that whenever evangelicals start trying to shove their religion down our throats and in this case our children's throats, many a previously quiet atheists abandons their live and let live attitude and start making a lot of noise.

We need to stop thinking that the vocal atheist is as bad as the charismatic christian. The comparison is false. The black community in the 1960's stood up in force and said no more. We need to do the same. We should no longer be the good ones. We should never allow any of these challenges to our civil rights go unchallenged and we should never again lie about who we are to anyone.

[Norbert H.]

If creationism in science – then making whine from water surely is chemistry. Why not have that at school?

[MartinM]

"The sun is a massive thermonuclear furnace? It's a parsec away by the definition of 'parsec'?"

Well, no. It's, on average, one Astronomical Unit (AU) away. Parsec is more than three light years.

[Jesse]

For some reason, my comment is being denied because TypePad's antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam. It's not spam at all. Please visit the webpage I've provided a link to if you wish to read my comment.

[Jesse]

The statement, "A majority of Pinellas County School Board members ... think that if Florida children are taught about evolution, they should learn other theories on the origin of life as well," contains an equivocation fallacy involving the technical and nontechnical use of the word theory. In science, a theory is a rigorously tested hypothesis having explanatory power that predicts emprical phenomena. In lay usage, a theory is a speculation that has not experienced rigorous testing, and predictions and explanatory power are irrelevant to the definition. The two words should not interchangably used like it was in this quote. A similar equivocation-fallacy argument would be: "Life is a game; you should not take games seriously; therefore, you shouldn't take life seriously." The conclusion uses "life" in the technical sense of a biological phenomenon while the first premise uses "Life" in the sense of the board game. The fallacy is subtle but the resulting error is huge.

Gallucci thinks teachers should present both sides and students should let their science and religious backgrounds decide which side they accept. If there were any geniune scientific dispute over the validity of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis then Galluci might be right in arguing that teachers should present both sides; however, there isn't a scientifically legitimate "other side" at all. There's only one scientifically valid theory that explains biological diversity, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. To teach students a view not accepted (and rejected) by the scientific community while knowing it's unuseful in preparing students for the workforce is to do the students a disservice.

Bostock's statement is too vague. Is she arguing that every part of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is unconfirmed, or that portions of it are unconfirmed? Further, is Bostock talking about the doubtfulness of the phenomenon itself or of the explanation for it? She uses the word theory, which implies reference to the explanation but Intelligent Design pertains to the occurrence and not the explanation. Her statement doesn't make sense. She seems to be saying the phenomenon is doubtful. I think any objective person who looked at even a tiny portion of the evidence would infer the phenomenon occurred in the plant and animal kingdoms. Most scientists would argue the same.

Cook says that she thinks teachers are doing students a disservice by teaching one side as if no other sides existed. There are other sides but there are no other scientifically legitimate sides. As I argued earlier, to teach students a view not accepted (and rejected) by the scientific community while knowing it's unuseful in preparing students for the workforce is to do the students a disservice.

O'Shea says that ideally teachers will present neither evolution nor intelligent design in science classes. As she says, "How important is it?" I think it's extremely important.

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis allows people to predict the existence of fossils and where they'll find them. Any student who wished to be a paleontologist would be a failure in the workforce if they didn't have knowledge of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis also allows people to predict virus changes once they introduce drugs to their body, thus allowing further drug development to wipe out the changelings. Virologists could not develop such "multiple-wave carpet bombing" techniques without knowledge of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because they require predictions of future changeling forms. O'Shea should contact a virologist doing AIDS research to learn how important Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is to them and to their patients, who are now living longer because of it.

If O'Shea can, she should also contact Norman Borlaug. It is estimated that Norman Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person currently living, hence his Nobel Peace Prize award. He used his knowledge of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to make crops more disease-resistant and yield more food per acre.

O'Shea could also contact any competent computer programmer to learn about all the uses of evolutionary algorithms and how important those uses are. How important is evolution? I would say that if your job as a teacher consists of preparing students for the workforce and possibly for noble deeds like those of Norman Borlaug, it's teaching is vitally important.

Teachers should not present Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms. There is no large body of research. There are no emprical predictions. There is no large body of data to support it. Nearly all professional biologists and philosophers of science have denounced it. It's nothing more than an unscientific, religiously motivated rebranding of Creationism (as proven Barbara C. Forrest in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District court case). There is no valid reason to teach Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms.

[Tom]

String theory? I only believe one...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Semolina be praised!

Oh, by the way, anyone who makes blanket claims that anyone who rejects creationism can't be religious, you're wrong. Evolution is freely taught in Catholic schools with no fear of offending the Almighty.

[Chris Wiseley]

Four frivolous and ignorant people. One wonders whether they would pass a high school-level biology exam.

[BobC]

OPinion said "All attempts to prove a missing link have been proven false."

You either don't know what you're talking about or you're a liar. There's a massive number of fossils that explain evolution.

The fossils are very useful but not necessary to call evolution a fact. Recent DNA analysis is the most powerful evidence for evolution.

I know creationists are not interested in educating themselves. They want to know nothing about science so they can keep their childish god-did-it fantasies. But I will recommend this book anyway.

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll

Creationists should at least read the educational customer reviews of this book on amazon.com.

Board members Jane Gallucci, Carol Cook, Peggy O'Shea and Nancy Bostock should also educate themselves about science, but it would be even better if you resigned immediately and let competent people replace you.

[Dave]

Why would anyone be a "closeted atheist?"

It's not something to be ashamed of.

[Webster]

"Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

Just an FYI....

[Matt McNeil]

And Florida's future takes another hit as they submerge their youth yet another layer deeper into theocratic teachings. In 20 years you'll be a Christian equivalent of Saudi Arabia and you'll be under water - both due to your denial of science largely agreed upon by the world scientific community. Do me a favor - secede from the union and form your own little Jesus-republic. Don't drag the rest of us down with you.

[rhm]

"The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact."
Isn't that what defines a theory? Theories are never completely true, because we can't really prove them. When something is "Scientific Fact," we call it a law, since there is no room for proving or disproving.

[Craig]

Closeted atheists? Michael, I don't think you're getting the hint.

When someone tells you that your belief in your super special magical sky wizard is idiotic, I don't think they're trying to hide the fact that they don't share that same silly fantasy.

[Molly, NYC]

ID advocates are masters of spin. I especially like the way they use the word "indoctrinated" when they mean "actual scientists."

[Molly, NYC]

Naturally, if you were a scientist, you'd want your hypothesis to be accepted. However (a) only a cad would want it accepted if it wasn't true--and (b) the work of convincing other scientists is what in other occupations is called "paying your dues." ID advocates are, in this regard, both cads and cheats--they are trying to force acceptance of their position by flim-flamming people who don't know the difference instead of having the guts to stand up to their peers.

[Molly, NYC]

Consider string theory. This is a relatively recent school of thought in theoretical physics having to do with the nature of matter. It's controversial--not all physicists thinks it's valid, some do, there's evidence on both sides and at this point it's not clear whether it's the real deal or just a passing fad.

In other words, string theory holds IN FACT the sort of position in science that ID advocates claim ID does. But look at how differently it's handled: No one's trying to teach string theory in public schools yet, because there's a recognition that only well-accepted mainstream science should be part of the curriculum--which neither string theory nor ID are, while evolution very much is. And string theory's advocates are mostly talking to other scientists--they aren't trying to foist it on unsuspecting school kids.

[Molly, NYC]

Consider string theory. This is a relatively recent school of thought in theoretical physics having to do with the nature of matter. It's controversial--not all physicists thinks it's valid, some do, there's evidence on both sides and at this point it's not clear whether it's the real deal or just a passing fad.

In other words, string theory holds IN FACT the sort of position in science that ID advocates claim ID does. But look at how differently it's handled: No one's trying to teach string theory in public schools yet, because there's a recognition that only well-accepted mainstream science should be part of the curriculum--which neither string theory nor ID are, while evolution very much is. And aside from a couple of popular books and an episode of Nova, string theory's advocates are mostly talking to other scientists--they aren't trying to foist it on unsuspecting school kids.

Naturally, if you were a scientist, you'd want your hypothesis to be accepted. However (a) only a cad would want it accepted if it wasn't true--and (b) the work of convincing other scientists is what in other occupations is called "paying your dues." ID advocates are, in this regard, both cads and cheats--they are trying to force acceptance of their position by flim-flamming people who don't know the difference instead of having the guts to stand up to their peers.

[Molly, NYC]

If you're on the fence, ask yourself: Why are proponents of ID trying to convince YOU? No offense, but if you're not sure evolution is real, it's a safe bet that science isn't your thing. The Discovery Institute et al. puts ALL their effort and expense into swaying people like you because it's a waste of their resources trying to convince scientists.

Don't let 'em con you. Shocking but true: Scientists know more about science than non-scientists.

[Molly, NYC]

Anyone who goes on about how evolution is "a mere theory" needs to look up how the word "theory" is used in the sciences. Seriously, if you come into the argument misusing that term, you have no right to complain when people think you're just clueless (and I'm talking to you, Gallucci, Cook, O'Shea and Bostock).

[Molly, NYC]

1. Anyone who goes on about how evolution is "a mere theory" needs to look up how the word "theory" is used in the sciences. Seriously, if you come into the argument misusing that term, you have no right to complain when people think you're just clueless (and I'm talking to you, Gallucci, Cook, O'Shea and Bostock).

2. If you're on the fence, ask yourself: Why are proponents of ID trying to convince YOU? No offense, but if you're not sure evolution is real, it's a safe bet that science isn't your thing. The Discovery Institute et al. puts ALL their effort and expense into swaying people like you because it's a waste of their resources trying to convince scientists.

Don't let 'em con you. Shocking but true: Scientists know more about science than non-scientists.

3. Consider string theory. This is a relatively recent school of thought in theoretical physics having to do with the nature of matter. It's controversial--not all physicists thinks it's valid, some do, there's evidence on both sides and at this point it's not clear whether it's the real deal or just a passing fad.

In other words, string theory holds IN FACT the sort of position in science that ID advocates claim ID does. But look at how differently it's handled: No one's trying to teach string theory in public schools yet, because there's a recognition that only well-accepted mainstream science should be part of the curriculum--which neither string theory nor ID are, while evolution very much is. And aside from a couple of popular books and an episode of Nova, string theory's advocates are mostly talking to other scientists--they aren't trying to foist it on unsuspecting school kids.

4. Naturally, if you were a scientist, you'd want your hypothesis to be accepted--but (a) only a cad would want it accepted if it wasn't true; and (b) the work of convincing other scientists is what in other occupations is called "paying your dues." ID advocates are, in this regard, both cads and cheats; they are trying to force acceptance of their position by flim-flamming people who don't know the difference instead of having the guts to stand up to their peers.

5. ID advocates are masters of spin. I especially like the way they use the word "indoctrinated" when they mean "actual scientists."

[Michael]

I'd like to welcome the next wave of closeted atheists that will be coming out thanks to this latest exhibition of religious dogma pretending to be science.