I'd written the following, among other things, at Colorado
Confidential on Dan Whipple's article on the "press conference" the
"Expelled" bunch had without allowing questions. It was in response
to Kevin Miller, one of the writers of the execrable "Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed" movie, wherein he stated that ID is a challenge
to the foundation of the scientific enterprise itself:

"Thanks, yes, but...
"The main statement I thought was so interesting from Miller was:"

"'I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the
very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself.'" [this sentence
is the only quote from Miller in this section]

"I just included responses to other stuff because I thought that if I
quoted (and I wanted plenty of context when quoting--I should have
highlighted that sentence, but I'm wary of the formatting differences
between forums) it would be best to include answers to what is pretty
much a bunch of nonsense.

"Shocking, isn't it, that science doesn't embrace ID as science, when
it wishes to challenge the foundation of the scientific enterprise
itself? What's with science, will they next be expelling ideas of
chthonic gods and goddesses inhabiting sacred groves? Doesn't a
belief that the mind influences chemistry merit concern over its
expulsion from chemistry by the IDists?

"Miller just plainly reveals what ID does, complains that it's
"unfairly" expelled even though it's opposed to the actual methods
discovered, developed, and honed in science. It's the theme of
Expelled, except that (I am led to believe) the movie doesn't admit
that ID is anti-science, as Miller essentially does state.

"That, of course, is the glaring difference between (relatively) free
science done in liberal democracies, and the anti-science policies of
Hitler, Stalin, and the IDists (I don't want to say IDists are like
Nazis and Stalinists, I just want to indicate comparable anti-science
attitudes). Stalin was opposed to neo-Darwinism, despite its
conformance with the standards of science, like the Expelled crew is.
We're opposed to ID being credited as science, simply because it
doesn't conform to the methods and standards of science--which IDists
even occasionally admit, like Miller did in the quote above.

http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showComment.do?commentId=21373

He responded just before further responses were disallowed, his
response being contained within my response below. The following is
cross-posted from AtBC:

"What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote,
only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:"

"Quote
"'I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement
that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to
Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific
enterprise itself.

"'Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of
science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that
one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't
just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it
also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of
science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c
it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature
of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I
fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.
'" [these two paragraphs constitute the only quote in this section]

"...[That] is what he wrote on Colorado Confidential, which is where
I'd respond in turn, if their server would let me.

"Kevin is such a jerk. Ooh, ID is so lovely, because it lets
uneducated dolts like him stick their noses into epistemological
issues that they don't understand.

"The news for you, Kevin, is that these issues are discussed all of
the time, but never profitably by those who understand neither science
nor philosophy. You've never told me that you'd be willing to submit
yourself to the "standards" of ID if you were accused of some crime,
and I'm sure that's in part because you wouldn't be willing to be
subjected to such dishonest "standards" (and in part because you
refuse to engage in honest discussions).

"Besides which, why aren't you bothering physics with your middle
school relativism? Why are you only troubling biology with your low-
level prattle? The fact of the matter is that it is in physics where
epistemological issues truly do come up. Biology sticks largely with
classical science, and is as nearly unproblematic as Newton's laws in
the questions of what constitutes evidence, and what does not (sure,
biology is more complex, but what is evidence is not a problem).

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 "

I would just add that he subtly restated what I had written. I wrote
"challenge the foundation of the scientific enterprise itself," not
"oppose" as he mischaracterizes what I had written. Par for the
course, unsurprisingly, as he rather badly micharacterized what I
wrote at the "Expelled" blog as well. Though I'd have to say that it
makes little difference, since he's ignorantly "challenging" what
neither he nor the rest of the IDiots understand, and in ways that
they would in turn "challenge" if such codswallop were used against
them in court.

Oh well, paid IDiot misrepresents both his opponents and the questions
at stake in science. Not news in general, and a constantly repeating
pattern in the particular.