[Phys-L] Intelligent Design (was SPAM-SPAM-SPAM ...)

[ajm at CSUPOMONA.EDU (John Mallinckrodt)]

> While I certainly view with disdain the attempts to include "Creation Science"
> or its offspring, "Intelligent Design" as deserving of equal time in the *
> science* teaching environment, I am happy to see its discussion carry an
> "interested parties only" rating for the listserve.
>
> These are serious Professional Concerns issues which are rarely met head on in
> committee or in Crackerbarrel sessions at meetings. Karl

I agree with Karl.  While the "discussion" here may have become at
times unproductively "impolite," NO current issue is more dangerous
and critically important to address than the shameless and
increasingly successful attempts by Christian fundamentalists to
undermine the teaching of science in America.

If you think otherwise, consider this from today's news:

WITNESS DEFENDS BROAD DEFINITION OF SCIENCE
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/national/19evolution.html?emc=eta1>

A leading architect of the intelligent-design movement [Prof. Michael
J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University] defended his ideas in a
federal courtroom on Tuesday and acknowledged that under his
definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as
intelligent design.

... Under sharp cross-examination by a lawyer for parents who have
sued the school district, he said he was untroubled by the broadness
of his definition of science ...

... "Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the
scientific community," Professor Behe testified in Federal District
Court, "but I am very pleased with the progress we are making." ...

--
John "Slo" Mallinckrodt

Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>

and

Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~hsleff/OoPs.html>