Saturday, February 18, 2006


All thinking people hail Rep. Terese Berceau, a Wisconsin lawmaker who has introduced a bill that would ban public schools from teaching so-called intelligent design as science.

It's the first such proposal in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Berceau admits her bill probably won't pass; the legislature is controlled by Republicans. But hey, you can't blame a girl for trying to inject some sense into this fake debate.

The Capital Times in Madison says Berceau has riled the radical right:
Focus on the Family, the evangelical Christian advocacy group led by founder James Dobson, panned the legislation this week on its Web site.

"If you can't beat them, keep them from showing up for the game," the group opined. "That's the tack Wisconsin evolutionists and liberal lawmakers are taking in attempting to ban the study of intelligent design in public schools."

Baptist Press, the online wire service of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville, also was critical. It called the introduction of the bill by Berceau "an unprecedented political move to protect evolution."
Baptist Press is right -- it is a move to protect evolution from attacks by the anti-science crowd. Got a problem with that?


Duane Keys said...

"If you can't beat them, keep them from showing up for the game,"

That's because the evolutionist are playing in REALITY, imaginary scoring isn't allowed.

John Stone said...

Partly because they learned in December that if they went ahead with unintelligent design it was gonna' cost them ... big. Ohio gave up the ghost this week. Kansas is still trying to put Galileo back in hell.

Intelligent Design - Biblical Creationism, dressed up in a tux, waiting for someone to call for a dinner date.

Larry Litle said...

It fascinates me that each side attacks the other as being fanatics. Just as Intelligent Design lacks scientific evidence to prove itself, so does macro-evolution of one species evolving into another. This is why it is a theory and not a scientific law. Just because you disagree with their view, must you attack them? Just because I believe that macro-evolution is a crock, does not give me the right to judge those that believes in it. Discussing what we believe and disagreeing with each other makes this country great. Judging and labeling people does not. Just because someone disagrees with the current teaching of evolution does not make them “anti-science”. The left screams about the wackos on the right labeling people, but what about the labels the left puts on people on the right?

MoJoe said...

Larry: You are mistaken about no evidence of macro-evolution. Just because we haven't seen a dinosaur change into a bird doesn't change the fact that there are mountains (literally) of evidence in the fossil record that shows exactly that.

But that's just a detail. The flaw in your logic: Even if macro-evolution was completely wrong, that doesn't make ID right. If ID supporters think they can use such a fallacious leap in logic to kill a particular theory they find distasteful, then HECK YES we must attack them. Our nation's livelihood and progress depends on it.

I'm all for a positive, scientific discourse about ID. But to do that, you have to argue in terms of science. You can listen to one such balanced debate here. But anyone who recommends a religious-based theory with no scientific standing to replace evolution? That's the very definition of anti-science. The label is fair.

Anonymous said...

>> I'm all for a positive, scientific
>> discourse about ID.

But, it seems that Mr Davis would disagree.

He is all for stopping discussion of ideas that he disagrees with.

How else would you explain his tone everytime he writes about the subject?

Ron Davis said...

Anon: I'm all for discussing ideas -- especially those I find contrary to my own beliefs. Go ahead, discuss intelligent design in religious-studies class. Just don't try to push it in science class, 'cause it doesn't even come close to science.

John Stone said...

Larry you repeated one of the many canards of ID that is simply untrue. As MoJoe points our there are huge amounts of evidence for transition between higher classifications. The reason ID'ers try to pass this dog of an argument off on us is that they (a) don't understand taxonomy; and (b) ignore the evidence that provides the foundation for taxonomy.

While this sin is less egregious than Behe's "irreducible complexity" howler or Dembski's poorly thought out "information content" it is still a sin in science to ignore evidence simply because you don't like it. And then turn around and claim, without basis, that same evidence is false.

I presume you have read Phillip Johnson's "Wedge Strategy" -- it's easily available in a google search. Take note of the total lack of science in the genesis of the ID idea, and the "design" to make an end run around the court decisions of that time.

Larry Litle said...

Thanks for continuing the discussion. MY issue was not that people don't agree with ID but rather it became an attack on those of us that do support it. Attack my ideas and challenge me and I will view your discussion with an open mind. Attack me for believing it and then it would not matter if you hardcore evidence to prove your point.

I have seen the discussions of the theories that Dinosaurs evolved to be our current birds. Funny, it was not that long ago that the dinosaurs evolved into lizards. It keeps changing. As fascinating as the discussion is, I still have never seen any proof of it even though I continue to ask for true evidence of macro-evolution. Just because there proof in micro does not mean that macro is true.

I think part of the issue is a misunderstanding of what ID really is. Some people, that support it, are using it inappropriately. I have blogged on this a few times in the last few months- The first one being back in December. Please feel from to examine it over at Feel free to disagree with me. Please point me to this mountain of evidence for Macro-evolution. Let us discuss this as adults and leave out the name calling (such as being anti-science).