AAAS president rails against ID

In this post I will respond to the above article which is posted in part here

Quotes and comments;

1. "The problem is that ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science. By redefining what is and isn’t science, they also put the public—particularly young people—at risk of being inadequately prepared to live in modern society." - Alan Leshner
- if all were matter in motion there would be no problems. Do rocks have problems? The fact Leshner imagines he has a problem is evidence he's not mere matter in motions as he claims.
- once again (for the millionth time) we have evolutionists (who are really pantheists in my opinion) pretending they don't have religious beliefs... it's only the Christians who have 'religious' beliefs. Religion has been defined so many ways you could fill a book with them, but one of the better ones states that religion is a set of connected beliefs having to do with ultimate concerns. If we use that definition we see that everyone has a religion; has religious beliefs. (If Leshner wants to distinguish Materialism from Christianity, he should say so.) It makes no sense for Leshner to pretend he has no religion; that he has no basic beliefs about matters of utlimate concern. All this endless talk by evolutionists about religion is a mere smoke screen. The great irony is that people (like L.) who accuse creationists of deception are lying through their teeth, and engaged in a massive campaign of deceit.
- people like Leshner are the ones who are engaged in redefining science. (i.e. from a search for truth to methodological naturalism.) For him to accuse Creationists of doing what his crowd have specialized in seems utter hypocricy.
- the idea he's worried about ID negatively affecting how people are able to live in modern society is a farce. How he can utter such drivel is beyond me. (He probably has a great future in politics; but then again maybe that's what he's engaged in already.)

2. ''Twenty-first-century citizens are regularly required to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- and technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and what their children should be taught in school.''
- shopping choices? shopping choices?
- of course under the teacher (union) domination of the gov. school system parents are deliberately given no say in what they're children are taught. (Good socialists like Leshner believe children belong to the State; ie. to the political elite.)

3. ''There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory. ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution, but it fails the criteria for achieving that status. In our business, a theory is not an educated guess nor, emphatically, is it a belief.''
- of course evolution is a belief. Leshner apparently doesn't understand what a belief is. Finite and fallible creatures aren't capable of anything beyond belief. To have certain knowledge we'd have to know everything (and accurately) about everything. (And I don't think even a genius like L. is up to the task :=) If evolution weren't a belief no one would ever give it up; as so many have.... having looked critically at it they see it is inadequate and fallacious.... that it cannot account for reality.
- here we have L. defining and redefining concepts to conform to his own basic presuppositions.
- it's interesting that he calls big science a business; which it certainly is... but at least he admits it.
- of course a theory is an educated guess.

4. ''Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed, and it is essential that they be testable by repeatable observations and experimentation."
- it's more accurate to say that scientific theories attempt to explain experience not observation as Leshner puts it. (Would there be no science if we didn't have eyesight?) One hears thunder, one doesn't see it. One feels the wind, one doesn't see it. (and so on.)
- well; if we apply this rule consistently it denies the big bang as theory as well as evolution. No one saw the imagined evolution of the planet; no one saw 'life' come from inert matter.... etc.
- has Leshner tested his own definitions of science? has he observed his definitions? has he tested them? ie. are definitions empirical? if not (and they aren't) they must be thrown out to conform to his ideas on science.

5. "In fact, “belief” is a word you almost never hear in science. We do not believe theories. We accept or reject them based on their ability to explain natural phenomena, and they must be testable with scientific methodologies.''
- here's a man in desperate need of a course in philosophy. He says scientists accept or reject a theory. Okay; and why would they do that Mr. Leshner? Obviously they accept a theory because they believe it to be true. Leshner seems impossibly naive in his statements.
- is the 'theory' the universe popped out of nothing one day testable? We do know that the idea life emerged spontaneously from inert matter to be false; because we've tested the idea innumerable times. This falsification however has not stopped evolutionists from believing in it.

6. 'He repeats several talking points of the anti-ID position: (1) evolution is just as much a theory as gravity...'
- anyone who repeats this tired old canard is not a serious thinker, but merely a clown. The analogy is utterly unjustified and inappropriate; it compares biology with physics for one thing. (You can drop an apple and it will fall to the ground; but it won't bounce up a cat, or even an orange.)
- gravity of course can't be seen (at least I've never seen any :=) one sees the effect of gravity, or gravity in action... but one doesn't see gravity. One is then in the position of trying to infer the nature of something from its effects. (Not too dissimilar from the kind of project ID is involved in.) So, what exactly IS gravity? as far as I can tell, no one knows.

7. [Leshner tell us that] 'evolutionary does not attempt to answer the religious questions of whether God was behind evolution, “because it is a matter of belief that is outside our realm,”
- this is disingenuous as the matter of orgins is also outside the realm of observational science. No one saw the proposed big bang; no one can tell us what was there before the big bang. (And origins is a religious question for most people; unless like L. you've redefined the issue out of existence.) No one saw 'life' magically emerge from chemicals. etc.
- how does L. know what a 'religious' question is? does he observe religious questions? why as an empiricist does he even talk about such things?
- how does he know what is and isn't within the realm of 'science' as he defines it? Does he know this by observation?

8. 'ID can rightfully be taught in humanities or philosophy courses but not in the science class; “Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn’t educationally sound,” he [L.] says.
- this is exactly what the materialists (naturalists) have done. This is the old rhetorical technique of accusing your opponent of your own sin. (i.e. before he accuses you of it himself.)
- It's always comical to hear materialists speaking of moral absolutes; when materialism can in no way provide a basis for such beliefs.
- I guess this is one of Leshner's core beliefs. (But are his beliefs about science scientific? of course not. His beliefs about science are motivated by his world view of evolutionary materialism. In other words, his beliefs about science are part of his religious view.)