Arguments XIII - The 747 or a Shakespearean monkey

A very common argument against evolution tries to compare evolution to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a 747. A similar comparison is to take evolution and say that evolution is like putting a monkey in front of a typewriter and waiting for him to produce a Shakespearean play.

In my humble opinion these are extremely false comparisons and demonstrate either a completely poor understanding of evolutionary theory or are a deliberate effort to mislead and misdirect folks. Either one to me is foolish.

Let me explain. First of all the nearest possible connection between the activity of a tornado and evolution would be in the concept of random mutation. Because I believe that is the heart of their argument. They think people will agree that the odds of such an activity happening are so astronomical that it would make people think evolution's odds are astronomical too. A seriously false analogy!

So the tornado comes along and picks up a piece of material that could conceivable be used on a 747. Where does it put it? How does it select that particular item? What is running the show, so to speak? In evolution let's do something sorta similar, a mutation happens. An individual member of a population forms a mutation through one of the many mechanism that cause mutations to happen. Now the big question is how does that mutation become part of evolution? One mechanism is Natural Selection. If the mutation increases an individual's opportunities for survival and reproduction, it will most likely be passed on the future generations. The mutation may open up a new food source, or been viewed as more attractive by potential mates, or make the individual more robust. Whatever the mutation, natural selection would see that the trait got passed on. In time when their exists a population that exhibits the trait, you can see evolution in action.

Well what is performing this function for the 747 or the monkey sitting in front of the typewriter? Nothing! That is why the analogies are so false. Evolution is not an unguided act, like they wish you to think. Evolution is not nearly as random as a tornado through a trailer park, um sorry, junkyard. There are many other forces at work than just randomness.

Here is a better analogy using the same tornado. According to Evolutionary theory, life, as it reproduces, introduces change. Over long periods of time the changes become more profound. While I will admit that junk in a junkyard doesn't reproduce. But let's take the junkyard and run a tornado through it. Outside the junkyard the tornado deposits a bunch of junk. That pile of junk is very different than the pile of junk it started with, correct? Well another tornado comes through and takes that pile of junk and does its thing and another very different pile of junk is created, maybe one with new junk from the second twister. This to me is a slightly better analogy. Oh it's still missing tons of stuff to actually be an analogy for all of evolution. For example, where is the selection?  In the tornado example, what is the mechanism that selects?  There isn't one in a tornado, but there certainly is in evolution.  But this analogy could be used to compare with random mutation, one of the mechanisms of evolution.

I think you can see where this would apply to the monkey as well. In either case just remember that by itself a tornado or a typing monkey are not good analogies for the entirety of evolution, but maybe just a tiny piece.

Arguments XII - Lady Hope

Subtitled -- Did Darwin recant his evolutionary theories and become a born-again Christian on his deathbed? The short answer is No! Here is the longer answer.

Apparently a lady named Elizabeth Reid, aka Lady Hope, claimed that in 1882, shortly before Charles Darwin died, she visited him and he recanted his theories and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. She told this story -- for the apparent first time -- in 1915, at an evangelical conference in Massachusetts. Her story was then printed in American Baptist newspaper the Watchman Examiner on August 15, 1915. The original text is on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope

Now aside from the obvious question like why did this lady take almost 35 years to tell this story? There are even more obvious ones like who is Lady Hope, what was her connection to Charles Darwin, and did what she claims happen actually happen.

According to Darwin's family, including published statements by his wife, sons, and a granddaughter -- Lady Hope was not a visitor to Charles Darwin in his last days. Darwin's religious views were well documented and definitely didn't agree with her statements. And some of the details, like him being almost bedridden months before he died, were inaccurate to say the least.

Now who are we going to believe? Lady Hope, who it turns out was not some family friend or bystander, but a member of the evangelical temperance movement with an ax to grind against Darwin's theories.

The story spread, as what we now call urban legends tend to, because it made such a great story. Several academic studies were done, not just by the secular agencies but by evangelical agencies as well. Guess what they found? That there wasn't any proof it happened! Even Answers-in-Genesis, that stalwart site who love anything that tried to shed doubt on evolutionary theory doesn't give any credence to the Lady Hope story.

So when some Creationist drags out this chestnut, grab a little ammunition and poke a few holes. I mean it's one thing when Talk.Origins denies it, they are a well known debunker of anti-evolutionary arguments, but when the evangelical community denies it, you should have an easy time.

Florida came through in the end

While I have posted that I disagreed with the small change in wording to the new Florida State Science Standards requiring Evolution be called the Theory of Evolution, when no other scientific theory is so identified, I have been watching two bills introduced to the Florida State Houses make their way through the legislative process. I've been watching with interest.

The two bills, according to their supporters, are bills to protect teachers who dissent from Evolution from being fired or disciplined. They were also supposed to be about academic freedom, something that I see as a lie! But more on that later. for now please join me in a round of applause because as of May 2, 2008 the two bills are dead. Read about it here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/FL/739_antievolution_bills_dead_in_fl_5_3_2008.asp

The bills sponsors had a little trouble convincing other state representatives that there were teachers being discriminated against because of their lack of support for evolution. I guess it's hard to pass a new law when there are no victims! Other sponsors just kept harping on academic freedom and failed to make their case. Florida done good. The only down side is that I would rather the bills come up for a vote and be voted down rather than just left to die on the vine -- because the stubbornness of those sponsors will mean the Florida Legislature will be dealing with this issue over and over again. My hopes is that the Florida voters remember which school board members and legislators supported this thinly veiled attack on science and passes judgment in the only way voters can, and boots them out of office.

As for the academic freedom argument, I've already posted other comments on it. But to me it is NOT academic freedom when you substitute religion for science, it is not academic freedom being supported when you create a law for one group of teachers on one tiny part of their curriculum, What this whole issue to me was pandering. The bills sponsors were looking to cash in on conservative points of view and earn points with some of their constituents. I hope if fails in the polling place!

Florida already has laws and regulations concerning academic freedom. Teachers today can introduce controversial subjects in their curriculum areas. But what teachers are not allowed to do is subvert the approved curriculum areas defined by the state. The bill supporters claimed the bills wouldn't allow religion in the classroom, but those provisions weren't actually written in the bill.

My final take on this, until it rears it's ugly head again, is that this is a tactic used to try and weaken evolution in education. Do conservative Christians really want to support academic freedom? If so why weren't teachers who want to teach numerology, astrology, and taro cards not also protected? Why is only the Christian viewpoint the one they support, what about teachers teaching the creationist myths from ever religion? Nowhere! Those who think Intelligent Design and Creationism should be taught because of 'academic freedom' are using a despicable tactic as they try and wedge their way into the classroom and once there cover themselves in sweet sounding words. Sure nearly a hundred years ago was John Scopes allowed academic freedom? No! Regardless of the fact evolution was in the text book used in the school. There was no talk of academic freedom to support what he taught, or I guess I should say tried to teach -- or was accused of teaching. So this use of the words 'academic freedom' is a tactic, nothing more, and one I disagree with completely!

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. -- Review

I finally saw it, at the invitation of a Creationist friend of mine and She was heartily disappointed in the movie. I am still writing up what I felt was wrong with it, but her words were surprising, so I put them here for anyone who is interested. Actually I put them first on Topix and decided to add them here.

First of all, she was disappointed because at no time did the movie define what was Intelligent Design and the supposed science behind it. She firmly believed that if they had, then no one could deny the movie a viable cry in the wilderness of fighting against the scientific community. So she was disappointed there.

Even she had serious issues with the connection between eugenics and evolution. In her words "That's the stupidest thing I have ever seen . . . I don't agree with evolution, but that's just plain wrong! . . . What were they thinking?"

The scene of Ben Stein running all over Seattle in his cheap suit and ugly sneakers was ridiculous. And portraying the Discover Institute as a hole in the wall office was just marketing to build up the appearance of being some sort of underdogs. Apparently my friend has been to the DI in Seattle and their facilities are remarkably modern, large, and plush!

She was also very disappointed in the scene of Stein lecturing what was supposed to be a group of students. She learned just after the movie -- not from me, but an article in a paper -- that the students were extras as opposed to real students -- she was pretty disgusted.

Her final words to me were an apology for putting me through that. I don't blame her, I blame Ben Stein. As you might guess I was looking to be pretty well bored, but I have to say I did laugh a lot, much to the displeasure of others in the audience. Anyone who swallows Ben Stein's 'mockumentary' really needs their heads examined.

I agreed with her on all points, plus a couple of my own: What the hell is "Big Science"? I think Ben Stein swiped the "Big" moniker from the "Big Business" of the 80's political debates and "Big Oil" of the 90's. There is no Big Science" and his approach at explaining it was ham-fisted and utterly hilarious. The Scientific Community would certainly have trouble pointing to themselves, or any subset of themselves as some super shadow organization keeping scientific ideas hidden from view.

The examples of the supposed people persecuted have all be addressed here and in others places. In my opinion Ben Stein lied! He didn't get the Sternberg, Gonzales, Crocker, or Marks stories straight and just presented them in the way he wished they had happened. My God, since when did "Academic Freedom" mean that you could do anything you like in the classroom and not be held accountable? The movie was certainly slanted in the extreme and anyone who says Sternberg, Gonzales, Marks, or Crocker are victims should get their facts together.

Even though the movie did its best to present Dawkins and Meyers is the worst possible way, I think they still came across more believable than the others -- but everything including the lighting and the way they were edited left much to be desired.

I have many more issues, but I am still writing them up. I have to look up a Darwin quote they used, I think they blew it big time, but I might need to see it again, I don't take shorthand and didn't get the whole quote -- as they said it. All in all, I think my friend, while she isn't moving toward any support for the theory of evolution, she is certainly heading away from Intelligent Design! She plans on informing her Church Group about the screening and asked for my finished notes of my comments when I get done. An afternoon well spent!

I'm back

Yes, I know I've been gone a while. Something things just work that way. But it's time to get back to blogging because things have been happening and I would like your thoughts and feedback to some of it.

Like what's now going on in Florida. Florida, where they almost did the completely right thing, has introduced a bill in the State Legislature supposedly to protect the academic freedom of anyone who teaches alternatives to evolution. How bogus is that!

OK, you might disagree, but look at it this way. Every education system already has procedures in place to deal with academic freedom. Teachers, especially ones with tenure, are free to bring in just about anything related to their subject area into the classroom. They already have that level of protection. So why do we need this bill?

My take on it is that some teachers want to bring things into the classroom that is outside their subject area. Now this begs the question, do teachers who introduce topics outside their subject area deserve a special level of protection? I say No! If the English teacher starts teaching biology, they deserve swift and rapid action . . . and if they continue, they should be fired -- tenure or no tenure.

Of course this wouldn't apply here because this bill is specific to teachers who want to teach alternatives to evolution. And what alternatives are there? You know it's funny because while the bill supporters claim this is not going to be used to introduce religion into the classroom, the only alternatives that exist to evolution are religious based ones. There are no scientific based challenges to the theory of evolution.

So on the one hand this bill will do nothing . . . because it specifically addresses Evolution and if religious alternatives aren't discussed, then the bill is totally a waste of time. On the other hand the bill really doesn't prevent someone from teaching Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. So if they did, the new law could be used to prevent the school from taking any action. That would suck!

Here is what I think Florida should do. I think this would remove all issues and make a law that might actually do something useful. Since there are varying degrees of Academic Freedom in the policies of the multitude of school boards. Change the wording of the law to address academic freedom across all subject areas. State that a teacher cannot be disciplined for bring into the classroom controversial subjects that pertain to the subject area being covered! This would keep teachers focused on their subject area, the area they were hired and are paid to teach. It would prevent someone from bring religion into any class other than one addressing sociology or theology. Religious alternatives to Evolution would not be protected because they would not be within the biology subject area. That's my take! Any teacher that introduces material from outside their subject area or is pushing a specific religious point of view, whether it's Creationism for Evolution, Young Earth Creationism for Geology, or Astrology for Astronomy, I say they do not deserve any protection and schools should take quick and decisive action against such teachers.

Luckily, I am not the only one who objects to this bill (http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=8167028&nav=menu577_2_1)

Recent happenings

Sorry I haven't been around much, but things have been pretty busy. But I have tried to keep up on things. Of course the news from Florida is good, and even some of the news from Texas is good. One of the things I have been doing is responding to articles and comments in a few places, like Topix. Topix is an online reporting and comments place for many newspapers and periodicals in the country. Of course the whole political debate over Evolution is very popular there. Pretty much it's been run of the mill stuff, but I need to tell you about this one . . .person -- and I use that phrase loosely.

First a little background. Among the articles people were discussing was a very interesting one "Should Evolution be taught at high school?" Interesting article, but not what you might think. It is not an article supporting any alternative to evolution, not even any of the religious-based concepts. But a simple article that maybe evolution is too advanced for high schoolers. I disagree, but that is neither here nor there to this discussion.

The article was posted in a blog on 24 Feb, and here it is, just a week and a half later and it's generated over 4200 comments on Topix. Here is link to the beginning of the comment chain. One issue I has was that many people who posted never bothered to read the original article. As you might guess, it quickly 'evolved' into a pro-science and pro-religion debate with many of the usual suspects. I mean some of the ones who refuse to think, others who are pretty dogmatic . . . and then there is someone who calls himself "EvolutionDead". I bet you can guess which side he's on.

Well he started of the usual dogmatic anti-science rhetoric. Nothing new, but rather than respond to people who disagreed with them on at least a courteous level, he immediately started labeling them as "morons", "idiots", and other assorted pejoratives. Now that is kinda normal. There is another one called "Wallie-x" who has no patience at all the people who disagree with him. But ED here took it to new levels.

His ranting and abusive language got even worse. But then he started in on the political. Liberalism was the cause of all the problems in the world and evolution causes liberalism. So he wass not only dumping on anyone who disagreed with him, but anyone who appeared to him to be even a tiny bit Liberal. The funny part was that he numbered most Christians in that liberal list of his. You see, I and a few others reminded him of the Clergy Letter Project, and how three Popes supported evolution, and how most scientists who support evolution are religious and many are Christians. How the International Society for Science and Religion support evolution . .and he seemed to come unhinged! He started ranting and raving about something he called 'true' Christians and only 'true' Christians were Christians at all and that any one else, which apparently included the entire Catholic Church are fakers, liars, non-believers, and . . .your guessed it morons, idiots, and other terms to vile to mention here.

Then he start in on homosexuality, which certainly seems to be a pet peeve of his and referred to one of his disagree-rs as a . . .and please pardon the language here, but I was so surprised by his comment "a cum receptacle". The level of abuse was amazing and also his defensiveness. Of course, you can imagine lots of folks responded to his abuse, and some in kind. So in one post he would be whining about having been the victim of other nasty postings, and then right away accuse another person of causing the Holocaust. The whipping back and forth was amazing.

So according to ED, he is the only true Christian in the world, and he gets to decide who is and who is not an actual Christian. Everyone who disagrees with him is "pick your pejorative, the worst the better". Evolution is not only bad science, but it is the cause of everything that ails the world, including liberalism. Personally I think he has several issues. Not only a poor education, horrible grammar, and a complete lack of personal relation skills, but a serious lack of confidence and a need for any form of validation in his beliefs. Plus he is so homophobic, that I believe he has doubt about his sexual orientation and it scares the hell out of himself!

It was pretty funny, but it changed to really pitiful after a short time. But he's still in their posting the same garbage over and over again! Pardon, me I think I'll go tug on his chain a few more times :-)

Florida came close, but missed the bullseye

After many raucous debates Florida finally approved their new Science Standards, but they did cave in at the last minute to the Creationist/Intelligent Design crowd who seem to think popular opinion should decide what is or is not science. Check out the Orlando Sentinel.

To recap: Florida for years has taught "change over time" as a fundamental concept of biology. This they did as a sop to a whining minority who are against teaching Evolution thinking that it somehow belittles their place in the universe.

Florida had a team of educators re-write the standards and they included the word Evolution and described it as one of the fundamental principles of modern biology.

At the last minute the standards were changed to put the words "scientific theory of" in front of the word "evolution"! One Board member voted against the standard because of the word change, but two others voted against the standard supposedly for reasons of "Academic Freedom" . . . a code phrasefor keeping the door open for Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Florida, you had the chance to hit a home run, but you settled for a triple! Evolution, the concept that life has changed over time, is as factual as you can come in science. The evidence is overwhelming. Now referring to the explanation of Evolution as a scientific theory is fine, because your new standards already did that, but by inserting the words the way you did showed that you are caving into pressure much in the same way you left out the word 'Evolution' from your last review of standards.

Sorry Florida, you did OK, but you still missed the boat and are allowing a small, but vocal, minority set science standards. Citizens of Florida, you need to look at your school board, local and state, and take a hard look at whether or not those people are actually doing a good job! Science standards should be about science and nothing else!

Before I say anything else, I need to read the new standards and I do have one question: How many other scientific theories have the word "scientific theory of" in front of them in the standards. If Evolution is the only one, then I might have to downgrade you to a double! Judge Jones, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case, ruled that using terminology like that doesn't increase the validity of what you are teaching, but it does the opposite.

SInce the "700" keeps coming up . . .

More on the 700:

Apparently the "Affiliations and credentials" part of the list of 700 is misrepresented. The way it works in science is that the organization you are currently associated with is listed in any document. Previous assignation or associations are listed in a curriculum vitae (CV). The Discovery Institute, that paragon of . . . . well this is a family blog, so I will leave the rest of that line blank . . . did not. They listed the most prestigious affiliations, even if in many cases the affiliation is from decades ago! This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and is deliberately misleading. Here is a sampling:

Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. It makes me re-think someone's position when their tie to a Ministry or the Discovery Institute is revealed, but of course the DI doesn't want such a thing revealed.

Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. For example, Leonard Loose signed the Dissent document at the age of 96, after a career as a high school teacher and missionary, but is listed as being affiliated with his alma mater, the University of Leeds. This is in spite of the fact that Loose's affiliation with the University of Leeds and the scientific community ended over 70 years ago. Makes me wonder what his affiliation is today?

Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position. For example, Ferenc Jeszenszky is a physicist in Budapest who handles the "Hungarian Creation Research" videos, but appears instead on the list as "Former Head of the Center of Research Groups, Hungarian Academy of Sciences".

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists often call him "Dr. d'Abrera". It is not clear how many other signatories of the list do not have a PhD either, although the Discovery Institute currently recruits people with PhDs to sign the Dissent petition.

At least one other signatory, Forrest Mims, has neither a PhD nor any formal academic training in science. Additionally, at least seven signatories have their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences" that are currently being recruited: Ronald R. Crawford has his Ed.D. in Science Education, David Berlinski has his PhD in Philosophy, Tom McMullen has his PhD in the History & Philosophy of Science, Angus Menuge has his PhD in the Philosophy of Psychology, Stephen Meyer has his PhD in the Philosophy of Science, Tony Prato has his PhD in Agricultural Economics, and Tianyou Wang has his PhD in Education and at least six, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Ricardo León Borquez (incorrectly listed as "Ricardo Leon"), Gage Blackstone, Daniel Galassini, Mary A. Brown and Thomas C. Majerus, have professional doctorates (such as an MD, DVM or PharmD), rather than holding a research doctorate (such as a PhD).

Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health.

Critics also say the Discovery Institute inflates the academic credentials and affiliations of signatories such as Henry F. Schaefer. The institute prominently and frequently asserts that Schaefer has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Barbara Forrest and others allege that the Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" despite that Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years and there being about 250-300 nominations per prize per year. He is also a senior fellow over at the good old DI, shame they forgot to mention that as well.

Let us not forget that after the Discovery Institute presented the petition as part of a brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover (October 2005) an unfunded grass roots counter petition, A Scientific Support For Darwinism, was organized and gathered 7733 signatures from scientists in four days. FOUR DAYS! After 7 years the Discovery Institute has managed to gather all of 700!

I am still waiting for that hotbed of controversy the DI keeps talking about!

Regents deny tenure appeal of intelligent design professor

Yea! I know, I know, that sounds cruel for Prof Gonzalez -- but his appeal based on Intelligent Design should have never happened! "Regents deny tenure appeal of intelligent design professor" tells some of the tale.

He claims to have met the requirements of tenure, but the information he wished to present on his behalf had nothing to do with the requirements for tenure. If he had evidence that he met the tenure requirements, that would make sense.

For those of you who have never worked in Academia, tenure is not a right, but a select privilege designed to provide job security and a certain amount of freedom from oversight. Tenure is one of the responses to draw people into teaching because the wages really, really suck! But it is not a right!

When you apply and are accepted for a tenure-seeking position there is usually a laundry-list of things you must do. You are also given a time-frame, something in the neighborhood of 5 years. On that list is usually things like publish, advise graduate students, teach lots of classes, perform research, bring in external money for research, among other things. The decision to grant tenure is based on all of them, plus how well you work with your peers, support department policies, and present yourself as a member of the faculty and staff.

If Prof. Gonzales had done these things, he might have had a chance at his tenure review, but according to his track record he failed. In over 7 years he had ONE grad student complete their thesis, raised less that 1/50th the amount of research money, and had no significant scientific publications. Yes, he published at least one book outside his field of Astronomy, which supported Intelligent Design, but nothing within his field. Why should he have been granted tenure?

His cries of academic freedom fell on deaf ears, because they DO NOT APPLY in this case. One of the things tenure is designed to do is allow professors the freedom to teach and research controversial subjects, one possibly not supported by the school. But even then it only applies within his area of expertise, Astronomy! Spending all his time in an area that is not even recognized as science tells me either he isn't a very intelligent professor -- because he should have known what was going to happen -- or he set himself up as the academic-freedom-poster-child at the urging of those less-than-stalwart fellows of at the Discovery Institute. Does make me think, how about you?

In truth, he failed to do his job as a tenure-seeking professor! He should pick an institution like Liberty University, you know Jerry Falwell's personal little slice of fundie heaven, for his next job. He can join Nathaniel Abraham who is teaching there. Nate was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for refusing to do aspects of his job involving Evolution because he didn't believe in Evolution. They should get along well together!

Intelligent Design is NOT Science

After first hearing about Intelligent Design, I never thought it was science. A conservative Federal Judge, one appointed by GW Bush, ruled Intelligent Design was not science. Every major science organization in the US doesn't believe it to be science. Now the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe it to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here : "The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

No matter how you approach it, the narrow idea of Intelligent Design is meeting resistance at every turn. It's not science, it's not even good religion -- so what exactly is it? It is an idea with tons of marketing muscle that appears to be failing. I can't wait to see the next metamorphosis -- I mean Creationism gave way to Creation Science which gave way to Intelligent Design -- which is not getting the traction the Discovery Institute wanted, so what's next? "Intelligent Creationism" or "Design Ideology"? I know "Design for Dummies" -- although that one might be copyrighted. How about calling it "Darwinistic Design"? Maybe you can fool a few more people by claiming it was Darwin's idea the whole time. Just never mention that the Darwin in this wasn't Charles and you will be legally covered. Surprised at my tone, well you are the expert in word games, I just like exposing them!

My other suggestion, one I have made before, is drop the marketing and do your leg work in the lab first. Don't start with your answer and bend some of the evidence to support it, but actually do the science! Who knows, you might learn something. But at least you will stop annoying state and local school boards and have them using resources better spent on actual education.