A very entertaining and informative talk, I thought. He's obviously an articulate and intelligent guy, and I liked his arguments right up to the conclusion, which didn't seem to follow. I mean, it's pretty obvious that we should teach children how to think and not just fill them with dogma. It's also pretty obvious that in order to make new scientific discoveries, you have to be prepared to discard old assumptions. No argument there. I grew up reading fairy stories and then science fiction and I don't think it did me any harm at all - indeed, it prepared me for my eventual career in "magic that works" (electrical engineering).
But it's a long leap from there to accepting that ID should be taught in science classes. It's not just an alternative way of looking at things, it's fundamentally unhelpful. That's why we don't teach alchemy or phlogiston theory any more. They're interesting historical footnotes, but we can't learn anything from them except that they are disproven. I don't think he addressed this point at all. Yet he criticised the judge in the Pennsylvania case (unfairly, in my opinion) for doing essentially the same thing - concentrating on a principle and ignoring underlying facts.
What do others think?
