That's because more than 2/3 of the general public doesn't have a complex understanding of biology.
***Then the subject matter should be reserved for complex biological systems, which would be 2nd year bio majors in college.
Attempting to use social arguments against scientific explanations is a gross misapplication of both.
***Ok, where is the misapplication?
And that's exactly the wrong way to discuss evolution or any other scientific theory.
***But it is exactly the right way to discuss where and how and when such a morally disturbing theory should be taught to students.
Scientific explanations are not invalidated just because people don't like the implications, though there are a lot of creationists who seem to think that this is the case.
***True enough.
Because, as has been explained before, there is no "controversy" within science.
***Then you're just restating, so I'll restate: It looks like a scientific controversy to me and 2/3 of the general public, which is significant in a social policy discussion. There was an interesting line in the TV series "Law & Order"... "if enough people think it's about race, then it's about race". If enough people think it's about a scientific controversy, then it is about a scientific controversy. There wasn't enough hard science for it to be a slam-dunk when it was presented to that smart guy who is president & has a Harvard education & all that, so he did not see enough reason to relinquish his confirmatory bias. He sees a scientific controversy, I see one, and so do 2/3 of the general public, all of whom are interested in what should and should not be taught to kids in classrooms.
The case for ID is based upon a gross misunderstanding or misstating of biology.
***Then it won't last long in the real hustle & bustle world of genuine science. The case for astrology is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the effects of gravity, but we don't see the president of the US pushing to have astrology taught in science classes. Those IDers sure are pesky with their counterpoints, that speed of light/fine structure constant thing, and lots of scientific articles to read.
Meaning that there's no purpose in putting it in a science classroom. Why teach non-science in a science class?
***I see plenty of purpose. It serves as a good punching bag, if nothing else. The fact is that a lot of scientific work in this evo/abio side was kind of sloppy before the criticism started pouring in. I agree that we shouldn't be teaching non-science in a science class, and I see evo/abio as a philosophical conclusion based upon science, but not science. Neither side belongs in a science classroom with their conclusions. And when either side is taught, they should be side-by-side and let students see for themselves. One way I look at evo is kinda like when I first ran across imaginary numbers -- the square root of negative one. Even though it doesn't really exist, there's a whole branch of math based upon it, and it generates some very useful & interesting results such that in some electrical engineering pursuits, it's better to look at it from that perspective than from the time domain perspective. With this math, 2 + 2= 4, yes, but it is seen as 2 + 0*i + 2 + 0*i = 4 + 0*i. And the evo/abio philosophy, when you look at it from an inductive spiritual perspective, comes up bankrupt. The very next thing in that perspective is to "know the tree by its fruits" and start searching for contingent social results, whether good or bad. And folks start seeing some nasty things associated with accidentalism.
This is another attempt at someone who has only heard a smidgen of media-filtered information who now thinks that they have a deep understanding of relativity.
***There it is. It didn't take long, did it? Thank you very much for your ridicule and displaying your genuine attitude. You can go on with the comforting knowledge that you are a true holy warrior for your chosen philosophy/religion. This is a social policy discussion; it does not MATTER if I have a deep understanding of relativity (or even if I think I have a deep understanding of it). For your colleagues' sake, I'll spell it out just a little bit. Let's say the pres took a position that Astrology should be taught side by side with evolution. In one stroke, it becomes a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). With responses like yours, you really let the cat out of the bag. But… come on… you're just toying with me, right? You know that I'm not a biochemist so you're just moving in for the kill like a Viking kitty… ;-)
No, it isn't. Please try to do some research on the topic before making such dismissive statements.
***Yes, it is. Is that what the level of discussion has digressed to, 2nd grade antics of yes it is, no it isn’t? I have done some research on the topic and I started entering some crevo threads. I have realized that I don’t need to be a biochemist to engage in social policy discussions. Once you start going into policy-land, politics takes a front seat and guys like GWB have their say. Scientists start to be looked at from the prism of what the benefit is to society. GWB must have consulted top-level science advisors, and apparently it was not enough to remove his confirmatory bias. After consulting his science advisers on a public policy issue, George chose differently than how you and they see it; if mainstream science was answering ID properly at that point, the pres probably would have seen it in a more scientific light. Mainstream science failed at that point. Take it up with George if you don't like it. When I look through the mass of material, I see a big scientific controversy with eggheads on one side ridiculing eggheads on the other side.