I love that. I'm glad this trial involves someone who actually understands how science is supposed to work. Now let's hope that the judge and/or jury get the point.

I recently listened to a Science Friday interview with Frans de Waal, and he had a great comment about Intelligent Design. He thinks it should be taught in science classrooms, but as a kind of counter-example to show how the scientific method is used to disprove a hypothesis. He cited the human back, which is utterly unexplainable by ID but very well explained by evolutionary theory.

I loved this. The obviousness of saying that the designer designed the designed makes me wonder if ID is just another way of dumbing down people. It's like that cartoon, where there are two people and one has covered the blackboard with equations and at one point it says "A miracle occurs here". An ID education might say, "when it gets too hard, insert God and you don't have to worry about working the rest out." Imagine what won't get done in the name of accepting blindly what we see at face value. Shudder in horror. Then think of Galileo and all he did despite church doctrine and hope, hope, hope we get past yet another patch of mind-numbing fear-induced paranoid anti-science theologibabble.