I commented in a previous posting about the Texas State Board of Education and how its Chair, a fundamentalist dentist, and other board members are willing water carriers for the Discovery Institute. They are pursuing the latest D.I. ploy of having the “weaknesses” of evolution taught in science classes. This ploy, which is really rather pathetic and smacks of desperation, makes me wonder what the next creationist tactic will be after this one also fails. Will they demand that biology teachers be required to cross their fingers behind their backs and roll their eyes when lecturing about evolution? Anyway, here is a letter to the editor I sent to the Houston Chronicle:

Dear Editor.

Thank you for Alan I. Leshner’s piece (“Board’s actions could put students at a disadvantage,” Chronicle, 10/23) warning of the State Board of Education’s unintelligent designs to put creationism into Texas school curricula. The only problem was that Leshner was far too nice. “intelligent design theory” (ID) is merely the latest incarnation of religious creationism. Time and again ID’s pseudoscientific arguments have been dissected and its religious agenda exposed. Leshner is overgenerous when he says that “of course” students need to hear about both the strengths and the weaknesses of evolution. He is referring to the recent creationist tactic (actually, a rather pathetic ploy) of trying to get the “weaknesses” of evolution taught in science classes. The problem is that these alleged “weaknesses” are figments of the creationist imagination. The “weaknesses” argument has been thoroughly rebutted by responsible scientists. For instance, creationists continue to push their hackneyed, discredited canard about the alleged lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. I have a book that draws extensively from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to list fifteen pages of indisputable examples of transitional fossils. If the Board of Education succeeds in getting ID ideology taught in Texas schools, students will get an education not only in bad science but in dishonesty.