You are right; however, only as long as it stays on the fringe and out of sight/out of mind, if it becomes a big issue we will be burned by it.
Look what happened in Kansas the 1st time they tried this §¶‡† back in 1999, the Democrats ran against the Republican school board members on a pro-evolution platform and won. It was only this year that the Republicans regained control and apparently they haven't learned.
So if this mythology posing as science doesn't fly in Kansas it's certainly not going fly in the rest of the country.
How many blue states do you think we will turn with this BS? You can most certainly forget about ever getting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire or Wisconsin back to our side.
Meanwhile we will probably end up losing Colorado & Nevada and possibly Florida and Ohio.
Well said.
Meanwhile we will probably end up losing Colorado & Nevada and possibly Florida and Ohio.
Really? What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Certainly not the exit polling from the last election where neither evolution nor intelligent design placed on issues concerning Americans. Of course, moral values did place, right at the top of the list. And lo and behold guess what happened? Yup, you got it, the Republicans extended their majorities all across the nation.
You guys remind of a stroy about a boy and a wolf.
It is really a epistemological criticism of Macro evolution, and they have some points from this angle.
The real problem, of course is that much of the evo argument cannot be really be approached from the empirical, experimental methodology that can be found in the so-called "head science" (which from my point of view is really science proper,) while at the same time the Evo side want to claim the surety of "hard science." I really think that some areas of Biology were if fact better characterized by our forebears as "Natural Philosophy."
I see a lot of rhetorical and philosophical hanky panky on both sides, and some of it seems to be even unwitting. I imagine if this get thrust into public scrutiny this will come to the fore and the whole argument will shift completely. You evos might be surprised at the outcome and who you end up arguing against.
My background is in Mathematics and Philosophy, and from that viewpoint, I find much of the claims of much of what we call "science" on today's campuses do have some dubious value, and built on some methodologically unsound footings.
You people imagine that all educated people are scientist, or buy the claims of science without analysis.
In this the IDers have sensed something: You too have a "religious" bent as well.
The public sense this as well. or so it seems to me.
You give some of your own prejudices away here by somehow implying that the "blue state voter" is somehow more intelligent that the "red stater." The admission is as striking as it is inadvertent
Evos to not seem to grasp the broader implications outside of science that the IDers somehow intuitively grasp, and those implications need to be addressed, though perhaps the conflict between the two sides here is not the place to do so.
Too funny...a freudian spellchecker.