The post is in regards to the Dover School Board's attempts to get ID taught in high schools. Steve Fuller (after two other ID witnesses bailed on testifying - likely the result of seeing the utter savaging that Michael Behe went through) tries to suggest that ID be taught in schools as a means of recruitment.
"But during cross-examination, he (Steve Fuller, an ID proponent) said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is "too young" to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science.He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an "affirmative action" plan to help emerging ideas compete against the "dominant paradigms" of mainstream science."
AR: The response to this was on point;
"Fuller is of course correct to point out that there have been scientific revolutions in the past that have overturned much of what we thought we knew about the world. But those revolutions were the result of scientists actually doing science - building theories and models, testing them against the data, publishing the results for their peers to see and arguing over the results to reach a consensus - not by hiring PR firms and lobbying legislatures and school boards. As always, the ID folks want to skip over all that pesky scientific stuff and jump right to the conclusion.
And the really funny thing is that this witness was called by the other side. This is beginning to edge into the surreal.
AR: 'Surreal' doesn't begin to describe it. 'Offensive' does a better job, but I think 'totally bugf*ck crazy' is perhaps best. Here is how Panda's Thumb (love these guys!) saw it:
On Monday, the defense brought in Steve Fuller, to give the postmodernist version of why “intelligent design” should be taught in the classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania.
Did you hear the one about the mafioso who studied French deconstructionist philosophy? He goes around making people offers that they can’t understand.
AR: In other words we have the perfect marriage between leftwing moonbat po-mo theorizing (there is no truth, everything is relative, blah blah blah) and rightwing theocrat fantasies of power and persecution (Why can't our stuff be science too? How come we need this thing you call evidence? I see a conspiracy of religious materialism!)
I guess the spectrum of intelligent discourse really does wrap around to form a circle where the extreme far-left and extreme far-right find they have much in common.
Turns out that whenever they agree, it's because they are both insane.