Dover defendants' expert witness defends self, criticizes ACLU in the blogosphere
at the University of Warwick (UK). In his testimony on behalf of the defendants, he claimed that intelligent design was indeed science, and that scientific methods are inherently discriminatory and designed to shut out alternative ideas. (For more on his testimony, see this blog entry.)
Since his testimony, apparently a number of individuals in the scientific community have questioned Fuller's defense of intelligent design. Fuller posted a lengthy response to a post on Penn State University professor Michael Berube's blog.
In addition to a lot of defense of his testimony, Fuller had a strange take on what the trial was really about:
Frankly, I think the public disposition of the Dover case is over-influenced by hatred of Bush and especially fear of the role of fundamentalist Christians in shaping the Bush agenda. (I have in mind here the propaganda campaign being waged on webpages associated with the ACLU: Don't they have more important civil rights violations in the US to worry about?) I'm certainly no fan of Bush, and have never even voted for a Republican, but I don't think that this trial is the right place to "send a message" to Bush. Why not work instead toward getting an electable Democrat - perhaps even one that can relate to the vast numbers of religious folks in the US, as the liberal evangelist Jim Wallis ("God's Politics") suggests? rest of post
I don't even know where to start with these comments, so I think I'll leave it to all of you to start!
Sara in Philly