Ken Miller has offered the final portion of his discussion of Luskin, Behe and clotting. He ends with the following:
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.
Indeed. 2008 saw the adoption of "academic freedom" as the flag under which the ID movement marches. Forget any theory of design or design detection - they are just smoke and mirrors. Forget claims to be teaching evolution better by considering both sides. We're going to be hearing a lot of noise that K-12 teachers have the "academic freedom" to "teach the controversy" even if a controversy doesn't exist within the scientific community. I can see such appeals working at the state and local level. And that is worrying.
- Log in to post comments
Was there ever a better demonstration that "academic freedom" (however it is understood, which would be another good discussion) is a two-edged sword? Indespensible, but to be handled with care. Perhaps the ill-repute that "academic freedom" at the university level sometimes holds can be played off against the attempt to wield it at the high school level. Or maybe this is a chance to educate about what academic freedom is and what it is not.
Well, apparently the cdesign proponentsists have faith in there being a controversy, when in fact it's more a manufactuversy.