As a perfect follow up to my earlier post about the IDers dishonest claim that the Kansas science standards have nothing to do with getting ID into public schools, take a look at this post at Dembski’s place. Dembski’s research assistant, Joel Borofsky, spills the beans completely in two comments on that post. Here’s the first:
My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because “we don’t know how to teach philosophy.”
It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it’s wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin’s theory because, “even if it is weak, it’s still the best theory out there.” (Shades of Dawkins anyone?)
And when someone else tried to argue that the Kansas science standards had nothing to do with ID but were only about teaching evolution in a “balanced” way, Joel responded:
It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.
If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.
Joel, Joel, Joel. You went and told the truth that the IDers don’t want told. Anyone wanna take bets on how long before those comments are removed from the site? Don’t worry, I have them archived. Perhaps this is just another bit of “street theater” from Dembski.