#49468: — 11/17  at  08:48 PM
There's our legal quandary: as long as a school board doesn't insist on teaching religion outright, what is the limit on stupid nonsense they can mandate? Sadly, there appears to be no constitutional limit, only a political one.

BTW, wouldn't it be refreshing for once to hear pundits argue over whether a judicial nominee would overturn Edwards v. Aguillard, instead of, y'know, that other case they always talk about?

#49469: coturnix — 11/17  at  08:48 PM
Kafka's hunger artist - a great metaphor. How about the Cheshire Cat - disappearing until only the teeth remain?

#49476: — 11/17  at  09:05 PM
I read Chris Mooney's American Prospect column earlier today, and thought how it was a Very Good Thing that the creationists have been called to account time and time again when they've tried to insert their religious beliefs into the science curriculum, because it does help to lay bare the fact that creationism/creation science/intelligent design is devoid of any scientific merit whatsoever. I wish people like Nathan Newman would understand that when they assert that we just ought to let the creationist wookies win and allow ID to be taught in public schools, because Mooney makes it clear that by working to separate the religious aspects from ID we end up with an emperor without any clothes in terms of the actual science involved. If the creationists want to teach their particular religious belief in public schools, they will have to teach them in a comparative religion course along with creation myths from other religions.

#49479: Eva Young — 11/17  at  09:26 PM
I agree. I'd like to see questions from the Senators on Edwards v Aguilard.

#49483: — 11/17  at  09:48 PM
I was getting confused about what exactly was Edwards v Aguilard...and googled it to discover that it's the 1987 supreme court decision regarding creationism! For those like me, here's a link from talk.origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html .

FWIW, I don't really think that Edwards v Aguillard has any chance of being challenged or overturned...the Supreme Court cannot have a majority of super-right leaning justices.

#49505: arensb — 11/17  at  11:07 PM
I've noticed the same erosion that Mooney has. And assuming that Jones deals the same kind of blow to ID as Edwards v. Aguillard did to "scientific" creationism, then I think they'll have two tacks they can take.

First, they can push to have ID taught in comparative religion or social studies class. But I doubt they'll find this approach appealing: the last thing the fundies want is to have Christianity presented on an equal footing with other religions, or to have ID discussed as a social or political movement.

The second is the HIV approach: start by attacking the immune system, after which the path to infection is easier. In this case, this means undermining the teaching of science. Once a sufficiently-large segment of the population can no longer distinguish science from pseudoscience, it'll be much easier for the creationist infection to spread. And besides, what the "I ain't related to no monkey" crowd really wants is for evolution not to be taught.

This is the approach that Kansas has taken. It remains to be seen how well it'll work. I think there are two things that might work against it (aside from the obvious, of course: effective action by science defenders): eventually there'll be a repeat of the Soviet Union launching Sputnik, and there'll be a renewed interest in teaching actual science.

Otherwise, there's the other problem with AIDS: destroying the immune system doesn't just clear the path for HIV, but for every germ out there. If Kansas redefines science to include ID, that'll open the door for astrology, Holocaust denial, crystal power, astral levitation, Kabbalah, and Cthulhu knows what else. The creationists don't want that either.

#49516: — 11/17  at  11:32 PM
"Once a sufficiently-large segment of the population can no longer distinguish science from pseudoscience, it'll be much easier for the creationist infection to spread."

I think they've already achieved that goal, if the polls aren't entirely fabricated.

#49526: — 11/18  at  12:28 AM
The Friday edition of the Washington Post features a spirited attack on ID by the paper's most odious columnist, Charles Krauthammer. This may be the first time K has been right - um - correct about anything. He does claim that his choices for the two greatest scientists of all time, Newton and Einstein, were religious men. Doesn't even mention the name or religious views of the greatest biologist of all time.

#49534: Hank Fox — 11/18  at  02:47 AM
I've thought a couple of times that creationism might eventually "converge" on real science.

First, it was pure faith. Then, to gain any ground with the public, they had to couch faith arguments in scientific, rational terms. Which meant the people leading the arguments had to know a bit about science. Eventually they might have to know enough about science that they actually wake up and find they're wasting time and energy by fighting it.

There was a popular writer of New Age books who actually woke up and realized what she'd done, and became a skeptic. I think it would be funny, and not out of the realm of possibility, for at least one of the outspoken creationists to recant, and begin working against the rest of the movement.

And in fact, it would be a good money-making move. Think of the books you could sell if you started spilling the beans on the insiders of the creationist cabal.

#49535: Alon Levy — 11/18  at  02:49 AM
Once a sufficiently-large segment of the population can no longer distinguish science from pseudoscience, it'll be much easier for the creationist infection to spread.

That's not really accurate. The American people have by and large never been able to distinguish science from pseudoscience; it's just that at one point in history, they believed scientists knew best (and to some degree they still do), so they would accept everything the experts said on pure faith, without understanding why exactly it was so. The primary goal of cranks is then not to cause the people not to understand science, since they already don't, but to cause them to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

#49536: Alon Levy — 11/18  at  02:51 AM
He does claim that his choices for the two greatest scientists of all time, Newton and Einstein, were religious men.

Einstein wasn't religious.

#49542: Kajiki — 11/18  at  04:38 AM
Einstein wasn't religious.

Then where does "God does not play dice with the universe" come from?

#49549: Alon Levy — 11/18  at  06:44 AM
He liked to use divine metaphors, but he said on several occasions that he was not religious and didn't believe in a personal god.

#49551: — 11/18  at  06:57 AM
It is simply hilarious that the creationist TMLC is providing evidence of the hypocrisy of the DI, saying:

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They [DeWolf and Meyer of the DI] wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design." ...

#49553: Johnny Vector — 11/18  at  07:31 AM

eventually there'll be a repeat of the Soviet Union launching Sputnik, and there'll be a renewed interest in teaching actual science.

That'll be China putting a man on the moon before we get back there. You read it here first!

And yes, that will spur a renewed interest in science, which is likely (but not certain) to result in Good Things.

#49554: arensb — 11/18  at  07:48 AM

The primary goal of cranks is then not to cause the people not to understand science, since they already don't, but to cause them to disbelieve what the experts are saying.

I do believe that's a better explanation. Thank you for the correction.

#49558: — 11/18  at  08:09 AM
I guess everyone has seen the KansasMorons.com entry at the Panda's Thumb about Connie Morris?
There is a link to a newsletter that Morris sent out
in June- as some of the other posters there have said,
it's hard to tell if Morris' newsletter isn't itself a parody.
So much for "fair and balanced" criticism of evolution.

#49566: — 11/18  at  08:42 AM
I've noticed the same erosion that Mooney has.

So have a lot of the old-line Creationists, and many of them are unhappy about the "Creationism Lite" approach of ID -- they want the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. Not that this stops some of them from adopting the ID line when expedient.

#49585: — 11/18  at  09:46 AM
I wonder how Ken Ham feels about Dembski and Behe?

#49587: coturnix — 11/18  at  09:53 AM
Some great updates on IDC in Alabama and elsewhere:
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2005/11/evolution-
warning-for-science.html

#49588: coturnix — 11/18  at  09:57 AM
Ooops. Let me try to fix that link....

#49617: Lya Kahlo — 11/18  at  11:13 AM
As for Einstein:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.

#49623: — 11/18  at  11:42 AM
I've e-mailed the Einstein quote provided by Lya to Krauthammer and am anxiously awaiting his apology.

#49639: — 11/18  at  12:18 PM
The thing is, despite that quote, I have frequently seen references to Einstein being a pretty staunch Zionist, and the references I'm talking about aren't from fringe anti-semetic lunatics. I don't see how someone could claim to not be religious but at the same time be a strong advocate of Zionism - unless he had something different in mind than the Zionist of today.

#49641: — 11/18  at  12:27 PM
Or for that matter, how could someone who claimed to be a pacifist and a pro-disarmament activist be a zionist?
He seems to be a pretty contradictory person.