back to business, lets continue to expose the ID shitbags http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_...ntelligent_design_to_teaching_the_controversy "Shift in strategy: teaching intelligent design to teaching the controversy The roots of the intelligent design movement's strategy are found in the past attempts of creationists to force religious views into public school science classes. The most recent of these was creation science, which sought to provide an purportedly scientific veneer for the biblical account of Genesis. The characteristics of the intelligent design movement are a direct response to the tactical and legal failings of earlier creationists. Design proponent's strategies represent a natural evolution of the "creation science" movement, proceeding still further in the direction of claiming the mantle of science while denying their religious intentions in argument. For example, the judge in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial noted in his ruling that evidence presented comparing the drafts of the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People before and after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling showed that the definition given in the book for creation science in pre Edwards drafts is identical to the definition of intelligent design in post Edwards drafts; cognates of the word creation - creationism and creationist, which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase 'intelligent design'; and the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes.[32] A rudimentary form of the teach the controversy strategy had emerged first among creation scientists following the Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) prepared an evaluation of what the movement should try next, suggesting "school boards and teachers should be strongly encouraged at least to stress the scientific evidences and arguments against evolution in their classes . . . even if they don't wish to recognize these as evidences and arguments for creationism." Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education says this comment shows that the teach the controversy strategy was "pioneered in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard."[33] Prior to the September 2005 start of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the "Dover trial," prominent intelligent design proponents, gradually shifted to a "Teach the Controversy" strategy. They had realised that mandates requiring the teaching of intelligent design were unlikely to survive challenges based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and that an unfavorable ruling having the effect of legally ruling intelligent design a form of religious creationism. Thus, the Discovery Institute repositioned itself. It publicly abandoned advocating for any policies or laws that required the teaching of intelligent design in favor of a Teach the Controversy strategy.[34] Institute Fellows reasoned that once the "fact" that a controversy indeed exists had been established in the public's mind, then the reintroduction of intelligent design into public school criteria would be much less controversial later.[35] The best illustration of this shift in strategy is comparing the Discovery Institute's 1999 guidebook Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula which concludes "school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution"[36] to 2006 statements by Phillip E. Johnson, that his intent was never to use public school education as the forum for his ideas and that he hoped to ignite and perpetuate a debate in universities and among the higher echelon of scientific thinkers.[37] With the December 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[38] intelligent design proponents were left with the Teach the Controversy strategy as the most likely method left to realize the goals stated in the wedge document. Thus, the Teach the Controversy strategy has become the primary thrust of the Discovery Institute in promoting its aims. Just as intelligent design is a stalking horse for the campaign against what its proponents claim is a materialist foundation in science that precludes God, Teach the Controversy has become a stalking horse for intelligent design. But the Dover ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.[39] By May 2006 the Discovery Institute, in a carefully calculated move,[1] sought to broaden the faltering "teach the controversy" strategy to include examples of other supposed legitimate scientific controversies. In Ohio and Michigan where school boards are again reviewing science curricula standards the Discovery Institute and its allies proposed lesson plans that included global warming, cloning and stem cell research as further examples of controversies that are akin to the alleged scientific controversy over evolution. All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community as legitimate science and all four are areas of science where the right wing thinks science is wrong. Members of the scientific community have responded to this tactic by pointing out that like evolution whatever controversy may exist over cloning and stem cell research has been largely social and political, while dissident viewpoints over global warming are often viewed as pseudoscience.[40][41] Richard B. Hoppe, holder of a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Minnesota, described the tactic in the following way: "Like the attacks on evolution, the attack on climate science is driven by the sectarian conviction that 'materialistic' science is untrustworthy and must be replaced. As with intelligent design creationism, science-deniers' so-called evidence takes the form of claims for the insufficiency of current scientific explanations rather than concrete, testable alternative hypotheses. As in the evolution debate, religious extremists use the clever strategy of denigrating the scientific consensus on causality (global warming is human-caused via pollution) by pretending it contrasts sharply with an alternative scientific theory that, properly-understood, is really just a more nuanced view that's not really in opposition (current global warming is part of the earthâs natural cycle but is being exacerbated by pollution). This exaggerates the intensity of normal scientific debate in order to suggest there's something wrong with climate science, and then uses this manufactured controversy to cloak the anti-science view and smuggle it into classrooms â sectarian religious evangelism masquerading as science."[40] --Richard B. Hoppe With the Dover ruling describing "teach the controversy" as part of the same religious ploy as presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, intelligent design proponents have moved to a fallback position, teaching what they call the Critical Analysis of Evolution.[42] The Critical Analysis of Evolution strategy is viewed by Nick Matzke and other intelligent design critics as a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.[43] Critical Analysis of Evolution continues the themes of the teach the controversy strategy, emphasizing what they say are the "criticisms" of evolutionary theory and "arguments against evolution," which continues to be portrayed as "a theory in crisis." Early drafts of the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan referred to the lesson as the "great evolution debate"; one of the early drafts of the lesson plan had one section titled "Conducting the Macroevolution Debate". In a subsequent draft, it was changed to "Conducting the Critical Analysis Activity". The wording for the two sections is nearly identical, with just "debate" changed to "critical analysis activity" wherever it appeared, in the manner of how intelligent design proponents simply replaced "creation" with "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People to repackage a creation science textbook into a intelligent design textbook. Repercussions The burden of responding to the well-organized curricular challenges of intelligent design proponents has been disruptive and divisive in the affected communities. In pursuing the goal of establishing intelligent design at the expense of evolution in public school science classes, intelligent design groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers, school board members and parents who opposed their efforts.[44][45][46][47][48][49] The campaigns run by intelligent design groups place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers while the legal challenges to local school districts are costly, diverting funding away from education and into court battles. For example, as a result of Dover trial, the Dover Area School District was forced to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages for pursuing a policy of teaching the controversy.[50] Four days after the six-week Dover trial concluded, all eight of the Dover school board members who were up for reelection were voted out of office. Televangelist Pat Robertson in turn told the citizens of Dover, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." Robertson said if they have future problems in Dover, "I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."[51] ..."