If you read the Ohio case there are board members that have been fooled into thinking that ID is a scientific theory. The Discovery institute will likely claim that they make no such claims and that it is just the rubes misinterpreting what they are saying, but what are they going to present in support of teaching something that is not science in the science class? I can't imagine what their representative is going to say to that board about teaching ID. If they are honest they will fall back on claiming that it is valid to teach the controversy, but since they have no scientific alternative there doesn't seem to be a scientific controversy. The Discovery Institute seems to be no better in the honest representation of the problem than any other creationist organization. That should bother people, especially the rubes that have been fooled by what they have been claiming.

-- Ron Okimoto, Asst. Prof., Univ. of Arkansas (posted 2/14, 2:45 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.