A crony sent me this link to The Pew Forum's December 4th conference on "Biology Wars," so you can read up on the very latest. Very interesting discussion. I note that right at the top of the transcript an unnamed speaker (perhaps the moderator?) distinguishes ID from creationism and says creationism is bad science and ID is a critique of science. And I also note this from Ed Larson, a U. GA guy who's also written two books on the creationism/ID/evolution controversy, right at the top of the transcript --who seems to support my comment that ID is evolutionary. ED LARSON: One of the discussions I had during the break — I never ended up getting over as far to reach the coffee or the tea — was just how dynamic evolution theory is now. And evolution theory really has always been very dynamic. All Darwin convinced scientists of with his book, Origin of the Species was common descent. That's a funny thing about evolution theory. People tend to use the term "theory of evolution" without defining it, and it can mean simply common descent; the various different species descended from a common ancestor. The lead scientist for the intelligent design movement, Michael Behe, accepts common descent; so how can you say it's a battle? If you use that definition, what are we talking about?
FYI, ninme responds to my response to her response to my response here. We both love to argue, it seems. I agree with her that a woman threatening to take her kids out of science class because of the Dover ruling is over the top, because at issue in the case was not whether an alternative to evolution would be taught, but whether teachers would be permitted to read to students a paragraph stating that some of the science in their textbook is now being questioned by science itself. It's not as if he blocked encroaching Fundamentalists from teaching Genesis, for heaven's sake. He blocked teachers from telling the truth --that where the origin of species is concerned, there's a lot we don't know. Bah.
