http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/index.php?blog=2&disp=comments en-CA http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:59:02 +0000 Ritchie Annand [Member] c386@http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/ There doesn't, strangely enough, seem to be a lot of original thought in terms of strategies and appropriate doublespeak coming out of the UK. Most of it seems to be imported from people, organizations or in some cases parent organizations in the US.<br /> <br /> It's tough to remember sometimes that there's no real equivalent of <em>Edwards vs Aguillard</em> or <em>Kitzmiller</em> cases UK-side (well, I don't <em>think</em> so, at least, judging by the lack of any such types of quotes by officials), so you get this duplicitous, shameless talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the US, the organizations pushing for intelligent design at least <em>try</em> to cover their tracks and admit more people under their tent, and they're nominally separate from the bald-faced creationists.<br /> <br /> I would call the UK effort more "honest", but no, shameless, not honest, is the more appropriate term, because it's not open and refreshing, it's galling and, when it comes to dealing with educators, sneaky. To the extent that they use Intelligent Design speak, and keep God out of literature, it's <em>strictly</em> in a cynical, utilitarian sense. They don't feel the need to hide their motives otherwise.<br /> <br /> It's all very... creepy.
It's tough to remember sometimes that there's no real equivalent of Edwards vs Aguillard or Kitzmiller cases UK-side (well, I don't think so, at least, judging by the lack of any such types of quotes by officials), so you get this duplicitous, shameless talking out of both sides of their mouths. In the US, the organizations pushing for intelligent design at least try to cover their tracks and admit more people under their tent, and they're nominally separate from the bald-faced creationists.

I would call the UK effort more "honest", but no, shameless, not honest, is the more appropriate term, because it's not open and refreshing, it's galling and, when it comes to dealing with educators, sneaky. To the extent that they use Intelligent Design speak, and keep God out of literature, it's strictly in a cynical, utilitarian sense. They don't feel the need to hide their motives otherwise.

It's all very... creepy.]]> http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/index.php/truth_in_science_anything_but?blog=2#c386 Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:30:04 +0000 Cynthia [Visitor] c354@http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/ Sounds like the Creators of "Truth in Science" are simply engaging in wishful thinking--not to mention the magical thinking of IDers! Plus, "Truth in Science" seems nothing more than a spinoff from "Teach the Controversy"... http://blogs.nimblebrain.net/index.php/truth_in_science_anything_but?blog=2#c354