Raped by ID

Pat Shipman defends evolution with paranoia:

Do not mistake my objection. If my neighbors and their children wish to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a science class.. . .

The threat posed by ID became more real to me when colleagues at Ohio State University . . . became involved in an extraordinary situation. A Ph.D. candidate in science education, high school teacher Bryan Leonard, wrote a dissertation on the following research questions: "When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time? What empirical, cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs? . . .

These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.

The success of the ID movement to date is terrifying.. . .

The Intelligent Design movement is a deliberate campaign to undermine the teaching of science in America,. . .

As scientists, we must stop ignoring the ID movement. It won't go away. Each of us must learn to avoid jargon in order to communicate better with the public. Every scientist should become a mentor; share your experience of the wonder and beauty of science! Finally, critically, we must expose Intelligent Design for what it really is: religious prejudice masked as intellectual freedom.

When someone defends his position with anger, dire warnings and hyperbole, I get suspicious.

I don't really think that ID or creationism should be taught in public schools, but I can't help noticing that even evolutionists themselves constantly use language implying design and intent. Maybe that's just how we think--if something results in a competitive advantage, we assign a "purpose" to it. Science writers and even scientists refer to specific behaviors and adaptions as if they were "chosen" by evolution, which is referred to in terms that suggest it is an intelligent force, like Mother Nature. Maybe it's hardwired into our brains.

But that stuff about feeling like a lone jogger being stalked by a criminal really struck me as weird. I don't think that ID is the cause of the decline of teaching seience and mathematics. And I don't think you get anywhere by waxing hysterical over trends you don't like. The whole piece is an emotional appeal denouncing the emotional appeal of ID. If anything, this whole debate is a result of the failure of Darwinists to make an airtight case.