(March 12, 2012 at 8:38 am)Rhythm Wrote: Actually, ID is pretty honest about it as well. They had to go on the defensive in a courtroom and wriggle this way and that, but lets not confuse that with dishonesty, that's standard courtroom shit. You don't win or lose a case by being honest or dishonest, you do so by being skillful, which sadly for them, their lawyers were not. ID proponents desperately wanted to be able to teach their beliefs in our schools, so they labored to make their beliefs roughly fit the guidelines for what was appropriate. Unfortunately they failed to accomplish this (and I say unfortunately only from their point of view).
If anyone wants ID to be science, and thusly appropriate for a highschool biology course, they need only do some science. I'm all for it. If they can find design in nature, that would be nobel prize worthy shit, and our knowledge of the world around us would be increased. There's just no point in sidestepping science if you want to call something science. That's my only gripe.
ID is honest? They are claiming it is science in order to get in public schools but thankfully the courts are smart enough to see through their lies. Since when was lying an honest act? You might want to read this.
