Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools? - Smith vs Kern at OCCC


Youtube Video.

Based on notes scribbled while viewing.
Kern starts by quotemining Crick and then Dawkins. (Mined quotes are not evidence, and misrepresenting other people's opinion is dishonest.)
Then he brings up an irrelevance - atheism.
Then he begs a question, saying that function implies design.
Then creates a strawman of evolution, saying that it is pure random chance. (Ignoring natural selection).
Then he regurgitates the "evolution is a dying theory" canard. (It has been dying for 150+ years.)
Now the information canard. ('Information' in DNA is a metaphor.)
Then C14 in diamonds. (A classic PRATT - a Point Refuted a Thousand Times). http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
Then he mentions irreducible complexity, without trying to explain why it supposedly cannot evolve.
(This is the only place he has touched on any Intelligent Design idea so far, although it is actually a rehash of interlocking complexity, an old prediction of evolutionary theory!)
Now we hear that ID is not creationism.
But evolution is atheism is a religion, and ID is creation is religion, so why can't we teach both.(!)
And education is about learning other points of view. (Well, no. Science education is about science, Steve.)
Then we hear that dogma in science holds us back. (But religion, somehow, is not dogma.)
Still no ID science.
Then the "random" strawman again. (Selection is not random.)
Now the ethics canard. (Evolution has a perfectly serviceable account of ethics. Even if it didn't, it would not make evolution false.)
Then atheism = evolution = no ethics again. (Irrelevant to the veracity of evolution.)
Then the poor state of public education. (Again why would this, even if true, imply that ID is true, and evolution false?)
Michael Lance gets mentioned, presumably critic of evolution. We still have not heard why ID should be taught.
Then an argument that essentially says, "Evolution doesn't have evidence either, so we creationist (note, creationists, not cdesign proponentsists) should be able to get away without any too")

We're about 8 minutes in, and Kern is getting just too embarrassing.

In a bit, Abbie Smith has a turn and tries to put him out of his misery, patiently explaining that in science lessons, kids should be taught science.

This doesn't stop Kearn soldiering on, becoming even more shrill and incoherent as time goes on. I start to feel really sorry for the guy, despite the fact that he advocates lying to kids in school.
Abbie gives us a rundown of her specialist area, virology, brimming with enthusiasm and delight in her subject, talking about all the fascinating and useful work involved - in stark contrast to ID, which has achieved - zilch.
I couldn't watch any more Kern after that.
Abbie's blog, http://scienceblogs.com/erv/ervs/ has been a great source of information about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) for me, an informal lay student of the topic. It's difficult to get across in a debate, just how devastating the evidence from ERVs is for the evolution denial industry, but it is. Creationists have no answers to it. See my own humble efforts to explain the evidence at http://evolution-biology.wikispaces.com/ERVs+-+%27Watermarks+of+Evolution%27+in+our+DNA and http://ervs-viruses-or-design.wikispaces.com/