Over at UD, a commenter noted the following:
â€œonly an editor will be able to approve contributions. Otherwise the texts risk being wrong,â€
We need to get some ID friendly people on the editorial staff.
This is in relation to the announcement of the Wiki textbook project, which aims to produce textbook-quality instructional materials that will be free, especially aimed at meeting the needs of developing countries.
The response above is instructive. Rather than discuss doing the things that would make ID worthwhile for someone, anyone, to learn about, like produce an actual theory, derive hypotheses from the theory, test the hypotheses with empirical evidence, show that the hypotheses are confirmed rather than falsified, publish their findings to the scientific literature, respond to criticism, and convince the scientific community that their ideas have merit, the immediate response is to game the system. Put in ID-friendly editors to insert ID wherever, whether it merits any discussion in science or not. We’ve already seen the sort of trashy ID apologetics that results from having an “ID-friendly editor” controlling a publication.
The proposed Wiki textbook project sounds like a noble effort. Inserting ID without having it pass scientific muster suborns that effort, adulterating the content with misinformation. Anyone with an ounce of integrity should be repelled by the notion that developing countries need politically mandated biology as an item we would export.<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 4548 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 1665 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>