"Science education will be destroyed . . ."
It is this kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes me very skeptical of the evolution community. Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry. Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.
Censorship will weaken science education. This thread also illustrates that the censorship is ideologically motivated. I have seen so many weird lectures on my campus integrating Buddhism and various other metaphysics into evolution, biology and other sciences. I see journals publishing articles on how UFOs dropped of life on planet Earth Billions of years ago.
In all these intances, the chicken littles do not run out and proclaim the sky is falling. Instead, they calmly appreciate the distinct viewpoint of the Dali Lama or whatever peculiar non-Christian guru is mixing science and religion.
Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!
See, this is where ID falls down immediately; because it tries to redefine stuff as science that isn't. Lots of things can be described as rigorous inquiry. Law uses rigorous inquiry. Philosophy uses rigorous inquiry. Science uses a particular type of rigorous inquiry though the use of testable hypotheses. If something, such as ID, is not based on testable hypotheses, then it's not science. It may still be worth teaching, but not as science. The recognition of this, that something may be worth teaching, but not as science, is what's going on in what's described in the posted article and is a great idea.
Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.
Once again, you corrupt the ideas of science to serve a non-scientific aim. Teaching ID has nothing to do with teaching a scientific theory. ID is not a theory. A theory is the result of a successfully tested hypothesis. ID has no ideas that have been successfully tested and is thus not a theory.
And as far as teaching ideas of competing scientists; Linus Pauling thought that Vitamin C would cure the common cold. He pushed it hard, but it didn't stand up to testing. Just because a scientist comes up with an idea doesn't mean that it should be taught as science.
You wrote: "Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!"
On the contrary, Michael Behe under oath on the stand in the Dover trial explicitly said:
Behe: “the designer is God ….I concluded that based on theological, philosophical and historical facts.”
Note that Behe did NOT say "scientific facts" or "observations". This shows what Behe's real agenda is.
>>>Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!<<<
LOL. So true. The spirit of Anti-Christ must preval, until the time appointed for its destruction.
"Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry."
ID is anything BUT rigorous inquiry.
"Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education."
ID is not, in any way, shape, or form, a scientific theory. Therefore, teaching it as "science" will not improve science education.
ID is, at best, a philosophical statement dressed up in misused scientific language.
"I have seen so many weird lectures on my campus integrating Buddhism and various other metaphysics into evolution, biology and other sciences."
Those aren't science, either.
"I see journals publishing articles on how UFOs dropped of life on planet Earth Billions of years ago."
Those "journals" are not any sort of science journal.
"Behe is not religious!"
Nor is he scientific!