[PatrickHenry]

Links added by me. You gotta feel sorry for the Discovery Institute. They opened this Pandora's box, and now they're stuck with the consequences.

Prior thread on this topic: California High School Sued for Teaching 'Intelligent Design'.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 340 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[VadeRetro]

Too little, too late. Nobody believes it. Without creationist money, ID would have been broke long ago. Now, leave me alone. The NFL playoffs are on.

[Physicist]

I love a good game of let's-you-and-him-fight.

[SteveMcKing]

I heavily distance myself from others. This is conceit, in one view.

However, this arrangement helps to lower the annoyance of hearing stupid conversations like, "I just downloaded 'Hey Ya' to my iPod. Want to hear it? -- OH YES PLEASE I WOULD!"

Such is the gap between schools of our genesis.

[M203M4]

ID - a perversion of religion and a perversion of science. Satan is likely envious that it wasn't his idea - or was it?

[Stultis]

And yet a supposedly classic work of ID (and I'd bet advertised as such by the Discovery Institute) like Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin On Trial is filled from cover to cover with typical "Creation Science" arguments. The whole section on the fossil record, for instance, literally makes no sense apart from a young-earth/flood-geology perspective. Johnson's claim to be an old-earther or agnostic on the subject (I forget which stance he takes) is merely a point of incoherence; or evidence that, like many a lawyer, he adopts arguments opportunistically without understanding their full implications.

Besides, nothing in standard "scientific" (or "Biblical") creationism actually contradicts anything in "Intelligent Design". Officious ID'ers may claim that the two are not wholly identical, but they can't sensibly deny that one is a subset of the other. It would be like the AMA trying to claim that surgeons are doctors but internists aren't.

[Larry Lucido]

I'm a young earth creationist. I don't think the planet is a day over 3 billion years old.

[shuckmaster]

the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism.

Wouldn't that be a little like mixing butter with grits? So, is this an evangelical rift or just biting the hand that feeds you?

[js1138]

Creationist wedgie placemarker.

[RightWingAtheist]

[Hacksaw]

Just checking in to see what the latest bugaboo is with the FR Soviet Science Academy.

[Ichneumon]

Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists

Or as poster "nickmatzke" on talk.origins summarized it:

Boy, they change their tune fast, don't they?

Monday:
Darwinists Want To Ban Intelligent Design From Not Just Science Classrooms, But All Classrooms
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/darwinists_want_to_ban_intelli.html

Tuesday:
Dogmatic Darwinists Strike Again: Americans United for the Separation of Students and Science
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dogmatic_darwinists_strike_aga.html

Wednesday:
Intelligent Design Group Urges California High School to Change Course or Remove Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_group_urges.html#more

Read the articles and notice how they went off half-cocked for two days, snottily ranting about how "Darwinists" were trying to ban the "theory" of intelligent design from schools entirely, blah blah blah. Then on the third day, they finally got around to examining the facts of the course, and ended up agreeing with the "Darwinists" -- saying in effect, "hey, this isn't an intelligent design class, this is religion!" Um, yeah, that's what we've been saying all along, ID dudes, glad you finally could catch up after you got done doing your scripted ranting.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

According to Luskin’s letter “the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.” Luskin urged the school’s superintendent to “either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.”

Anything can be included in ID since it's a "teach the controversy" approach.