Richard Gallagher has an editorial in The Scientist in which he encourages scientists to embrace the "teach the controversy" mantra of the Intelligent Design creationists. There's a tiny germ of a proper idea in there, that this is an opportunity to expose schoolkids to evolution, but it's also incredibly unrealistic. After enthusiastically telling us that this is a wonderful opportunity to play up evolution, that we can use this to promote good biology, and that students will find evolution more compelling than ID, he brings up his one qualifier:

There is one caveat, and it's a big one: The topics must be taught on a level playing field. Full information on evolution and on intelligent design must be supplied, and there must be no further pressure on curricula or teachers. Given this, I'm in little doubt that the open-minded students of the heart of America will see the strength of evolution as a theory.

I think I want whatever he's been smoking.

Gallagher has not thought this through at all. Exactly what information on intelligent design is to be supplied? Could he possibly name something specifically? There isn't one text on ID that isn't dreck, there aren't any scientific papers published, there's no evidence, there's no science of ID to teach. Are the teachers just supposed to read a declaration that maybe gods or aliens created life on earth, and move on?

This is what irritates the heck out of me. We're supposed to teach science as a process, with consideration of the evidence and logic; we aren't supposed to teach it as dogma, and even the creationists agree with me on that. But what do the ID creationists have to offer but dogma and faint protestations and negative (and largely false) criticisms? I've looked and looked at what they have to offer, and there is nothing to teach. I see this silly happy optimism by Gallagher as founded on a phony premise, that there are two sides to be taught here, and it's simply not the case.

The only thing I found worthwhile in the whole piece was his conclusion.

In addition, scientists should go out of their way to support their local high-school science teachers to present the case for evolution. Scientists must propose their case to as wide an audience as possible. This includes commercial television news, a medium of which scientists have been skeptical. Let's get out there and argue!

Yes, let's. But let's not argue for the side of bad science, as he is promoting. Let's get out there and teach evolution and biology and the scientific method, not the fuzzy ignorant hoodoo of the creationists. And let's reject his worthless compromise.

Jason Rosenhouse rips into this at greater length than I have.

If you came here by way of that link in The Scientist, I will mention that Gallagher has most reprehensibly distorted my point and failed to address any of my criticisms. My comment on his latest editorial is here.