hell’s handmaiden

O’Leary… comedian, pinball wizard, rising ID star, big fish in Dembski’s very dirty pool, and now…

Imagine that. In nations where the public school systems are increasingly unable to find common ground among competing interest groups, these home schooling menaces want to provide religious and moral instruction to their own children.

Home schooling: A worry to materialists?

O’Leary knows damn well that the objection isn’t to parents providing religious and moral instruction to their kids. Perhaps, as the article says, this is the motivation for homeschooling, but certainly O’Leary knows that she is misdirecting. The problem is that religion and morals is only part of what the kids get taught. The rest of what they get is bad science– wretchedly bad voodoo snake oil garbage.

Or, how about another question entirely? What in the hell does this have to do with Intelligent Design?

The results of a fascinating experiment, in which some people deliberately ignored rational information in favor of emotional information in assessing probability.

The ID Report - When materialists think about religion: Are you a (a) religious robot or (b) religious freak?

The clipping does after all come from The ID Report, an arm of ARN– the Access Research Network, “providing accessible information on science, technology and society from an Intelligent Design perspective.” The article’s author is Denyse O’Leary, whose name is in the tagline of Dembki’s Uncommon Descent, and whose genius has been noted here before– most notably in A curious argument and Denyse O’Leary cracks a joke.

Poor saps– in this case John West and Robert Crowther– can’t even frame the debate accurately.

Darwinists are quick to claim that science isn’t democratic and because Darwinism is the dominant theory supported by a majority of scientists students should learn only the evidence that supports it.

Intelligent Design the Future: Should the “Consensus View of Science” Always Prevail?

True, evolution is supported by the majority of scientists trained in and working in the relevant fields, but that isn’t the why it should be taught and ID shouldn’t. Evolution should be taught because:

The last sentence has some truth to it, generally speaking. The first sentence is insane.

Reverse engineering in biology is an inference to design, even if the inference is implicit and not explicit, and even if the scientist using the reverse engineering methodology doesn’t agree with the philosophical implications of the design inference. Much of modern molecular biology is the reverse engineering of biological molecules.

Evolution News & Views: Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist Makes Wikipedia Reference ‘Disappear’

Where does a thought come from? How much does it weigh? What is its physical makeup? It is these quesitons which demonstrate that the neo-Darwinist “its all blind, evoutionary chance” school of thought is, well, insufficient:

How About Something Non-Controversial? You Know, Like the Creation/Evolution Debate?

Mark then quotes the Pope, an obvious and reasonable first choice when seeking information about scientific matters. To be fair, the content was generated not just by the Pope but by “Pope Benedict and his former theology students“. I’ll return to the Pope in a moment, but let me ask my own set of questions…