WHEN it comes to dealing with 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥�, scientists should take a leaf out of the book of Karl Rove, George Bush鈥檚 tenacious election strategist. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time to start playing hardball,鈥� said Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, speaking at the Geological Society of America鈥檚 annual meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah.
In a call to arms, geologists were urged to join their biologist brethren in attacking the creationist challenge to Darwinian evolution. The conference devoted two sessions 鈥� comprising 24 presentations 鈥� to the debate, plus a panel discussion on the so-called 鈥渘ational attack on science鈥�.
With the trial over teaching intelligent design in full swing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the urgency was palpable and the sessions attracted large crowds. Many of the speakers stressed the anti-evolutionists鈥� high level of organisation, dedication and persistence, and urged scientists to match this. A variety of tactics were discussed, from bolstering legal efforts to grass-roots action such as teaching evolution to children at an early age, reaching out to voters, and leading church-group discussions about evolution. 鈥淛oin the school board,鈥� suggested high-school science teacher Mark Terry from Seattle.
Advertisement
Wise drew enthusiastic applause by arguing that science should go on the offensive. He suggested a Rove-style campaign to 鈥渇ind a few of your opponent鈥檚 weakest points and pound on them mercilessly鈥�.
鈥淔ind a few of the weakest points in intelligent design and pound them mercilessly鈥�
What are these weak points? Look no further than our poorly draining sinuses, cramped teeth and hunched spine, all hangovers from our long-muzzled, knuckle-dragging days, and perfect examples of what Wise calls 鈥渋ncompetent design鈥�.
