Sunday, 11 January 2009

Debunking Corner - Ken Miller update

We brought you the first part of a Ken Miller guest post here; Debunking Corner - Irreducible Complexity (again) . Now we can give you the second and third parts.

Ken Miller’s Guest Post, Part Two

Ken Miller’s Final Guest Post: Looking Forward

A couple of extracts that caught our attention;
If ID surrogates in Louisiana, Texas, and other states are to argue that evolution is a controversial idea with serious scientific flaws, they’ve got a problem.  They know that the parents and educators backing genuine science education for American students will pick up the Dover decision and cite chapter and verse from its ringing indictment of everything that Casey and the Discover Institute stand for.  They also know that state legislators and school board members will consider the legal troubles that beset Dover and decide to pass on Discovery’s persistent offers to guide them along the path of undermining evolution.  In short, if Kitzmiller v. Dover stands, they’re done for.

. . .

The only relevant question at this point is why the Discovery Institute keeps highlighting its own failings in this way. Why are Casey and his employers now — three years after the Dover trial — trying to rehabilitate the tattered credibility of both Michael Behe and Pandas? What mischief are they planning now? The only conclusion I can draw is that they must be maneuvering for the next round of state board hearings or legislative sessions — and I’m concerned.  These folks are a whole lot better at politics and public relations than they are at science, and that means that everyone who cares about science education should be on guard.

No comments:

Post a Comment