The old creation science is the new intelligent design.

I'd be interested to know what definition of "scientifically valid" he argued for in his paper. I can't think of any that ID actually passes.

And, this from a State where: 1) Perhaps 90% of the kids are left behind; 2) Kids that elude the Baptists and Pentecostals and get an education in the workshop of the devil (i.e., any non-faith-university or college) move away mostly FOR GOOD; 3) Has a Reverend Governor with delusions of grandeur that he can do what Bill Clinton did (get real!).

AR beats Turkey to the bottom of the creationism belief list.

Even Behe admits creationism is only scientific if you change the definition of science so that astrology qualifies! Teachers have a right to teach scientifically valid astrology!

Maybe Arkansas is upset that Kansas is getting all the publicity.

I think "Gunner DeLay" would be a great trade name for a premature ejaculation therapy.

"The basis of my paper was that although legislative mandated efforts to teach creation science or intelligent design have been struck down, the courts have left open teaching those theories under an instructor's First Amendment right to academic freedom," DeLay said.

— Delay

As ID's political and cultural significance continues to diminish, I wonder if we're going to see more of this kind of return to "Creation Science".

At least until the DI gets together whatever the new disguise will be.

(My fear is that we're seeing the "New ID" emerging over on DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom Delay/Ann Coulteresque "kill the judges" fascism.)

My favoriste part of thye article:
"The Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, state Sen. Jim Holt of Springdale, said teachers should have the option to teach about intelligent design and that students should have the option to learn about it.

He called evolution 'a fraud theory' and said that keeping intelligent design out of public schools is censorship.

'It is not scientific to censor other theories or hypotheses,' Holt said."

What the hell is Holt talking about?

Never mind, both creationism and ID must be science, just look at the logic here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1442

Just think, scientists who accepted evolutionary theory won Nobels at the same time that kids were being lied to about evolution and creationism in the schools. ID must be science.

Anyway, isn't the above conclusion the implication of its being written on a pro-ID site?.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

NS.10.B.1 Explain why science is limited to natural explanations of how the world works NS.10.B.2 Compare and contrast hypotheses, theories, and laws NS.10.B.3 Distinguish between a scientific theory and the term "theory" used in general conversation NS.10.B.4 Summarize the guidelines of science: explanations are based on observations, evidence, and testing hypotheses must be testable. understandings and/or conclusions may change with additional empirical data scientific knowledge must have peer review and verification before acceptance. [italics mine]

Bruce, wow, I am actually really impressed with these standard! I doubt my school ever really taught those things, but thank Gutenberg for books!

Do you ever get the feeling your watching Groundhog Day? Every morning you get the same news story, and you think, "wait, didn't I just drive off the cliff with the groundhog yesterday"? I'm certain the groundhog died.

Considering Arkandas brought in Kent Hovind as an expert witness on evolution the most recent time it considered a creationism/ID bill, I'm not surprised.

(My fear is that we're seeing the "New ID" emerging over on DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom Delay/Ann Coulteresque "kill the judges" fascism.)

— Matt

These people honestly do think that if they proposed legislation prompting cabbage patches and stork deliveries replace sexual education in schools they'd do it and expect us to sit there and obey it.

MYOB'
.

As a long time reader of UD, let me make a comment here. I don't see any reason why Dembski has to change anything. Dover, Kansas, I don't think any of that has affected him. He's out to look sciency and sell books and 'consulting' hours and get free plane tickets to new vistas. Since when have religious fundamentalists let a court decision stop them? From reading UD, while I agree that they unhinged a little bit, his acolytes are no less blind, no less aggressive, no less confident in The Truthâ„¢. I don't think his income stream is in any jeopardy, so I don't see that he'd have to change anything. Dembski's not out to win anymore. That's not his goal. While he may have initially believed in his efforts, he now knows he's beaten. The goal is no longer to win. The goal is to make some Benjamins.

I predict the DI fog machine will blanket Arkansas in the near future.

Comment #119526, "Matt" wrote:

"My fear is that we're seeing the 'New ID' emerging over on the DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom DeLay/Ann Coulteresque "Kill the Judges" fascism."

Matt, what do you mean by "fascism"? What does fascism have to do with it?

Why are you so insulting? Insults do advance the cause of science and acceptance of evolution over supernaturalistic creation.

Geez!

Barbara R.

"My fear is that we're seeing the 'New ID' emerging over on the DembskiBlog, and that it will consist entirely of a Tom DeLay/Ann Coulteresque "Kill the Judges" fascism." Matt, what do you mean by "fascism"? What does fascism have to do with it?

I did not use the term "fascism" as a glib insult. I used it to describe a potential direction that the radical religious right (including disillusioned ID supporters) could easily turn towards.

To be specific, by "fascism" I mean the bullying and threatening with bodily harm of judges, journalists, academics and other citizens who disagree with you. Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter and many others have been skirting the edge of fascist rhetoric for years now.

Dembski's increasing use of bullying tactics (see Pianka) and violent imagery (see the "Vise Strategy") in his posts is not just a humorous little game he's playing. Now that he and his supporters have placed themselves firmly in the Coulter camp, I don't think it's at all premature to speculate about where all those rants about Judge Jones's supposed venalities could be leading.

I didn't say (and I don't think) that they are fascists. I think, however, that they are allowing themselves to get obsessed about the supposed agents of their losses. They show a disturbing propensity to scapegoat those agents, such as Judge Jones, instead of examining their own behavior. That tendency, along with the reification of Ann Coulter et al., could be seen as taking a disturbing fascist turn.

As to "advancing the cause of science", take one look over there at the steadfast refusal of anyone to even look at the copious scientific references that have been provided to them. They're all about the culture war -- nothing else.

steve s: I don't think his income stream is in any jeopardy, so I don't see that he'd have to change anything. Dembski's not out to win anymore. That's not his goal. While he may have initially believed in his efforts, he now knows he's beaten. The goal is no longer to win. The goal is to make some Benjamins.

Do you make money from this? By passing you as a customer to our online booksellers, we are given a 4.5% to 10% commission on each sale depending on the number of books we sell each quarter.

According to the list of available books they sell pro-evolution books as well. Thus, they even benefit if they sell anti-ID literature. Quite hypocrite ...

Finally, I really like to see the fundies wasting all their money on losing court cases.

— Lenny

Finally, I really like to see the fundies wasting all their money on losing court cases.

— Lenny

Do they really loose money in court cases?

— Grey Wolf

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren't they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I'm sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

— Grey Wolf

Do they really loose money in court cases?

— Grey Wolf

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren't they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I'm sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

— Grey Wolf

Do they really loose money in court cases?

— Grey Wolf

The bunch of idiots that pushed ID got voted out, but they were shielded from responsibility, weren't they? (A mistake, in my view - they should be put to jail for sheer incompetence if not malice, but I'm sure that there are reasons why school district boards are not responsible for their actions - the guy that even lied to court has not even been charged, has he?).

— Grey Wolf

See, now that's annoying.

I tried to post the response and the server went down.

I waited until the main page reloaded and checked to see if it listed any new posts by me. It did not, so I posted again. The server timed out again.

So, again, I waited until the main page would reload, checked to see if anything I had sent had gone through, confirmed that it had not, and posted again, only to find that the server had gone down again.

I continued this sequence for about 40 minutes. It's lucky only three copies of my post have appeared.

Do they really loose money in court cases? This last time their buts were kicked, IIRC, the only money on the line was that of the school district.

Time is money, as they say. The idiot trial team that took up the school board's case pro bono lost money because they weren't spending time on cases where they could make a profit.

— Michael Suttkus, II

Regardless of the personal views of the school board, the district lawyer pointing out a million dollar liability that's not covered by insurance gets a lot of attention. The kind of attention that instills enough caution that it's often going to result in "Lets pass and let someone else fight this battle", and that's good enough in my book.

— stevaroni

Maybe what we need is a civil suit against the Dover creationists. Since the idiots deprived the school of valuable funding, any person now lacking those resources should have the right to sue them for suffering entailed.

I love the smell of creationists frying themselves in court in the morning.

So, Mr. Delay: what's the difference between teaching kids we're all born under a cabbage leaf and teaching Genesis?

And their reluctance to comment when asked if other religions should get equal time in the classroom only goes to show they are all liars.

Maybe what we need is a civil suit against the Dover creationists. Since the idiots deprived the school of valuable funding, any person now lacking those resources should have the right to sue them for suffering entailed.

Does Joel "Am I really that important?" Borofsky use PT as a news source?

"The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it's scientifically valid," DeLay said.

"The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it's scientifically valid," DeLay said.