This has been out for a while, but there is an excellent article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation about the ID movement. The authors of the paper include such eminent scholars as Elliot Sober (philosopher of science) and Ronald Numbers (historian of science, author of The Creationists, the seminal history of creationism). It is essentially a shorter version of Creationism's Trojan Horse, covering much of the same territory. It was written in support of a bill by Wisconsin legislator Terese Berceau, also a co-author of the article. That bill, which I think should be replicated nationwide, would prohibit the teaching of anything in public school science classrooms that does not meet the basic criteria for a scientific theory, particularly that it be testable. On a larger level, this article is a call to action on the part of scientists to get involved in this battle before serious damage is done to science education in this country. I couldn't agree more.
That bill, which I think should be replicated nationwide, would prohibit the teaching of anything in public school science classrooms that does not meet the basic criteria for a scientific theory, particularly that it be testable."
Really? To me, it sounds as scary as any other legislation that would have politicians use statutes to define science. Usually, it's in the form of warning stickers that state that evolution is not testable.
Off-topic, but today's Observer (the Sunday issue of the [Manchester] Guardian, if you will) has a nice piece about moderate republicans defecting to the Democrats.
Bob