The innerwebz are abuzz with the latest hilarious attempts of US-based fundagelicals to "defeat scientific materialism" (PDF). Apparently, one part of the strategy is to go around and troll, flamebait and provoke on scientific community websites. William Dembski's Intelligent Design course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary requires that students In other places (PDF), students are asked to take the position of a panelist in a panel with Richard Dawkins or an expert witness in the Dover trial. It is fascinating to see how all this 'education' is bent on argumentation, strategy, debate and discussion. Not in one spot did I find an exam question that asked: how did whatever-it-was do the designing?

And I mean mechanistically: Did it use heavenly UV-light to knock out targeted single nucleotide bases, or was it a magic mutagen rearranging DNA strands in inversions, insertions, translocations and deletions? How were the molecules assembled, before there was any DNA or RNA? How did clay turn into DNA, fat and proteins? How were the atoms rearranged and substituted? Was it a transporter-like machine, such as the one in Star Trek? Did it need such tools, does it have hands? Pipettes, 96-well plates, thermo-cyclers? In a lab or in the ocean? Or was it just magic that defies "scientific materialism"? If it was the latter, is there really no way to understand it, or is it just sufficiently advanced technology? If it's 'real' magic, is there really no way to predict or forecast its occurrence or mode of action? If so, what makes magic different from 'chance'? In this case, would it at least follow the laws of statistics? Why is there more emphasis on debating skill than on such factual knowledge in these "exams", I wonder? Could it be that ID creationism is a little thin on factual knowledge to teach?

I also wonder how the ID movement will now be upholding the claim, that ID is not religious...