Wandeljw quoted William Dembski as follows:
Quote:William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design, described Berceau's proposed legislation as "a clear sign that we are winning." Critics of Intelligent Design "look foolish when they have to take political action to quash ID," he stated on his weblog. "Materialistic evolution already holds a de facto monopoly over public school science education" in what Dembski described as "a fundamental inequity in public school science education."
The absence of any genuine historical memory in the public is useful. Dembski ignores that the John Scopes "monkey trial" took place in 1925, almost 70 years after Darwin and Wallace proposed their theory of natural selection, and only eighty years ago. The act of the Tennessee legislature prohibiting the teaching of evolution, with which John Scopes was prosecuted, was repealed by the Tennessee legislature . . . in 1967, not even forty years ago. It appears that for much longer than critics of "intelligent design" have looked foolish, critics of evolution have looked as foolish, and more so, because of the apparent need to take political action to quash the teaching of evolution. The biblical literalists have declared war, and as always, the first casualty is the truth.
Quote:Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher, is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.; senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture; and author of several books on Intelligent Design, including "The Design Revolution" and "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.".
All of which is to say, that Dembski has absolutely no scientific credentials with which to challenge a theory of evolution. The very title "professor of theology and science" is evidence of the extent to which science
is no part of his agenda. His association with the Discovery Institute is the most laughable and absurd. The Discovery Institute is and always has been simply a propaganda mill and a political action committee. The only "discovery" involved has been the consistent attempt to discover new sources of funding in order to continue to promote a close-minded, biblical literalist view.
Quote:Some ID proponents have resorted to political measures in order "to break up that monopoly," Dembski acknowledged, but "for materialistic evolution to require legislation to preserve its monopoly will in the end be seen as heavy-handed and self-serving....
It is a constant fault of blackened pots that they wish to see others as kettles, and decry their blackness. There can be few more heavy-handed tactics than packing local school boards with stealth candidates, and then springing ID on the local school district, eventually involving them in ruinously expensive litigation.
Quote:"[F]or academics with stellar reputations like [Elliott] Sober and [Ronald] Numbers [who attended Berceau's news conference] to be actively supporting such political interference signifies that they are losing not only the war of ideas but also their position of cultural dominance," Dembski said.
Were the fundamentalist loonies not fearful of losing
their centuries old position of moral superiority--which position does and always has, resided only in their own imaginations--people such as Dembski could not look forward to lucrative incomes from promoting sham science.
Quote:Both University of Wisconsin faculty members are among the leading opponents of Intelligent Design. Sober is a philosophy professor; Numbers is a professor of the history of science and medicine.
Dembski compared the Wisconsin proposal to a federal judge's December ruling against the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools in Dover, Pa.
"Unlike Dover, where the focus was on ID's legitimacy as science, such a trial [in Wisconsin] would focus on the exclusive right of evolutionary theory to maintain its monopoly over the teaching of biological origins.... [T]his will be a much more difficult case for the ACLU to win. In Dover, ID needed to defend itself. In such a case [in Wisconsin], evolution will need to defend itself....
"Dover certainly wasn't ID's Waterloo. Wisconsin may well be evolution's Waterloo," Dembski said.
The foregoing is cheerleading for the troops. This is not at all dissimilar to the way in which ID proponents attempted to frame the law suit in the Dover case. Their optimism did not match reality however, and it is doubtful that if the Wisconsin case reaches a Federal court, that they can look forward to any different outcome.
Quote:Also on his Internet site, Dembski responded to Berceau's proposed legislation by stating, "I'm offering $1000 to the first teacher in Wisconsin who (1) challenges this policy (should it be enacted) by teaching ID as science within a Wisconsin public school science curriculum (social science does not count), (2) gets him/herself fired, reprimanded, or otherwise punished in some actionable way, (3) obtains legal representation from a public interest law firm (e.g., Alliance Defense Fund), and (4) takes this to trial.
"I encourage others to contribute in the same way," Dembski stated, though he acknowledged to Baptist Press, "My offer of $1,000 is more symbolic than anything. The personal cost of engaging in such litigation will be huge and in no significant way offset by the $1,000 I'm offering."
The Alliance Defense Fund, he noted, "knows the issues and has a proven track record in handling such cases. Also, they have a good working relationship with the ID community."
Symbolic is damned straight--Dembski and company will have to cast around for a teacher who can be deluded into making such an effort, and they'll have to do better than a thousand dollars--very likely insufficient to meet the monthly expenses of a modest family in Wisconsin. Apart from that, someone will have to come up with the literally millions of dollars necessary to pursue such a case, and if they lose, and lose a subsequent civil case, the millions which will be necessary to reimburse the school district they attempt to assault with this frivolous litigation.
All very cheery for the uncritical troops of the biblical literalists, but not a shred of realism in the entire screed.
