Thursday, October 16, 2008
Exercising Both Sides of the Mouth
Just to further demonstrate what a disservice the Texas State Board of Education has done to the children of that state, here is some more from Ralph Seelke, one of the authors of the Discovery Institute's untextbook, Explore Evolution:
"Simply allowing the student to look at scientific evidence for and against something, that is not by any means, by any stretch of the imagination teaching intelligent design--which I do not want," Seelke said.
Seelke said it's important for students to look at all theories on how life came about and not just evolution.
Presumably, in discussing students looking at theories, Seelke is referring to subjects they will be taught in school. Furthermore, since it is "theories on how life came about," including evolution (standard disclaimer: strictly speaking, evolutionary theory is not dependent on how life started), Seelke must be talking about science classes. And since he wants all scientific theories concerning how life came about taught to students, but doesn't (Heaven forfend!) want ID taught, it follows that, as far as Seelke is concerned, ID must not be a scientific theory, right?
Strangely, in 1999, Seelke seemed to think that ID was a viable area of scientific research:
Does intelligent design lend itself to a different set of research questions for experimental scientists? Are those questions also important to those favoring a neo–Darwinian explanation? I believe that the answer to both of these questions is "yes". ...
Much has been written about whether ID can result in a viable research program (see, for example, Moreland, 1994). I believe the time has come for ID proponents to be actively contributing to important research areas.