> WG I know that you dwell in an alternate universe,

You mean the real Universe...

> thus responding to posts is usually a fruitless enterprise.

Maybe fruitless to you!

> However, it would be useful to set context for lurkers and maatzies.

I make straight and forward logical sense and the lurkers and maatzies can see it in my posts...

> 1) Thousands of scientists worldwide will continue to carry out research, thousands
> of discoveries and hundreds of thousands of papers will be published guided by the
> modern synthesis of evolution.

..and many more carry out research and make thousands of discoveries that are not necessarily restricted to your naive views of the Universe!

> ID and/or "scientific creationism" is not only irrelevant to them but 99% of them
> don't give it a passing thought.

Very much like DE evolutionism is irrelevant to millions of others...

> What constitutes valid science is not decided by a majority vote-- and absolutely
> not by the opinion non-scientists.

I agree with you on that. But it will also not be your group what decides on that either. The bottom line is that you are losing power...

> 2) ID and "scientific creationism" is only an issue in the US. The rest of the
> world is amused by our contortions.

Do have any evidence of that or is this just make believe?

> 3) Why then, should we even be concerned by ID and/or "scientific creationism"?
> Because, we do a terrible job of teaching science and mathematics K-12, and
> it can only get worse if all the efforts that the National Academy of Science
> (National Science Standards and the AAAS (Project 2021) have put into improving
> science teaching are subverted by the pretense that religious belief is the
> same thing as science.

Of course, religious belief is not the same thing as science, but re-interpretation of data however is a much different concept. It is a fact that today's teaching methods do not always encourage independent thinking!

> 4) Another reason for concern is that the push for ID and/or "scientific creationism"
> is primarily conducted at the local school board level, or as in the case of Kansas
> at the State Board of Education, i.e trying to influence politicians who are, as we
> know, susceptible to organized public pressure from fundamentalist religious groups
> and public relations campaigns such as Paul has outlined.

In other words you are afraid of having less influence in society!

or yet in other words, you 'prefer' to polute the minds of the young in your way...

This, of course, would make straight and forward logical sense to me...You are desperately trying to fight against the degeneration in society but yet you are still losing the war...

How is that for some "straight and forward" public display of true reality...

> Thus the case for the "scientific validity" of ID and/or "scientific creationism"
> is not being argued in the proper forum (i.e. the scientific literature) and the
> arguments presented for it are not those supporting its scientific validity,
> but rather, the same circular arguments of the 19th century that "design" implies
> a designer.

I see, but reading many of posters here I do still see the "circular arguments" and "reverse twisted logic" arguments! So what made you think that you were "immune" to them?

IMHO you don't have an "exclusive" in scientific literarture and scientific process, specially for anyone that can execute independent thinking and IMHO your desperate attempts to try to control minds will not work since the "evidence" is starting to show that you are losing. I guess the "designer" is stronger...

> A snowflake is complex and "designed" but does this prove there was a designer?

Of course it was "designed"...Note that a "designer" does not need to have human form! LOL

That is also why it does not snow everywhere. All of the right conditions have to be there for a snow flake design to take place...

+-wirelessguru1