"It should be a fight for intellectual freedom, not a fight for science against religion."

Somewhat predictably, Dembski has posted this comment by Freeman Dyson:

My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design. The fight should be only for the freedom of teachers to teach science as they see fit, independent of political or religious control. It should be a fight for intellectual freedom, not a fight for science against religion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Teachers - at least in American public schools - don't have the freedom to "teach science as they see fit". They are mandated - as public servants - to teach science as the mainstream of the scientific community sees fit. Teachers in public schools don't get to choose what is scientific. And that's why claims that ID is an issue regarding a "fight for intellectual freedom" are completely bogus. Appeals to academic freedom only apply to tertiary level educators.

More like this

For one brief moment, the editors of the Washington Post have rejoined the Coalition of the Sane: NO ONE would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four. It's mystifying, then, that a movement to undermine the…
The Disco. Inst. is in a tizzy. No, it's more than a tizzy, it's all-out Disco. Inferno! Spokesman Rob Crowther writes: Liberal Darwin Activists Spin Push-Poll in Attempt to Water Down Science Standards: The liberal Darwin lobby group Texas Freedom Network has just published a push-poll of…
The Disco Institute's Rob Crowther is confused. Because the NCSE announced and linked to an ID statement by the National Council for the Social Studies, Crowther seems to think the NCSE has changed its own position. This really rests on two confusions (two of Crowther's many confusions). First,…
And Public School Administrators, too. There is a message being sent out, by the Discovery Institute (a non profit creationist 'think' tank) encouraging creationist students and teachers to "Suit Up, Sign Up, Show UP, Act Up and Start Up" (whatever that all means) on February 12, which of course…

Im not sure how ID could ever be considered scientific anyway. Personally, i do believe in God and that things were from a design, but i also know that science cannot prove it. The job of science is to show "how" things work, not to try and resolve the "why", and science does a very good job at that. ID is unfalsifiable, therefore it isnt scientific, therefore i do not want someone teaching my kids that in school under the guise of "science". My opinion, if im allowed to have one, is that ID was designed by a minority of liberal Christians. I personally know a lot of Christians and im not aware that any of them would think ID should be taught as science. Maybe ID can be considered reasonable by some, but it most definitely is not science.


he fight should be only for the freedom of teachers to teach science as they see fit, independent of political or religious control.

Maybe they should let Tom Cruise and John Travolta teach a class.

From Brett:

"ID was designed by a minority of liberal Christians"

Where did you get that idea? ID and Creationism is definitely the realm of fundamentalist very conservative Christians. Liberal Christians generally accept evolution and were responsible for things like the recent "Evolution Sunday" at churches all of the country.

Jim RL wrote: definitely the realm of fundamentalist very conservative Christians

There may be some confusion over the definition of fundamentalist, conservative, and liberal. Fundamentalists tend to be more traditional and dont like the idea of changes. You will tend to find that they are more creationists than ID-ists. Liberal tends to be somewhat, well liberal, in their interpretations of the bible and span a wide range according to what they are comfortable believing. Ive been labeled as a conservative Christian, so that is what i use for defining such. I consider myself conservative because i use both biblical and secular evidences to support my positions. For instance, i believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the position that the first chapter of Genesis is more figurative than literal. Although i think that creationists have a few good questions, i think that the evidences outweigh those questions. At what point does following evidence become liberal? Either way, you can label me any way you prefer, the bottom line is that ID is definitely not in the realm of science nor should it ever be confused for science.


Holy crap, that's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

Letting every individual teacher decide what they think is science? This is the Baptist church model of scientific teaching and is nuts for anyone who's ever seen what kind of Baptist minister Fred Phelps is.

No, control over curriculum is not a bad thing. Crackpots are everywhere and you need to weed them out and keep them away from the kids. Just like pedophiles.