The problem is that ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science. By redefining what is and isn¡¯t science, they also put the public—particularly young people—at risk of being inadequately prepared to live in modern society. Twenty-first-century citizens are regularly required to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- and technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and what their children should be taught in school. To make those choices wisely, they will need to distinguish science-based evidence from pseudoscientific claims.
There is an important distinction between a belief and a theory. ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution, but it fails the criteria for achieving that status. In our business, a theory is not an educated guess nor, emphatically, is it a belief. Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed, and it is essential that they be testable by repeatable observations and experimentation. In fact, ¡°belief¡± is a word you almost never hear in science. We do not believe theories. We accept or reject them based on their ability to explain natural phenomena, and they must be testable with scientific methodologies. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Just as the scientific community has broad responsibilities to monitor the integrity with which its members conduct their work, it also must take some responsibility for the uses of science and for how it is portrayed to the public. That requires us to be clear about what science is and to distinguish clearly between scientific and belief systems, in schools and in various public venues devoted to science. Otherwise, we will fail in our obligation to our fellow citizens and to the successor generations of students who will depend on science for their future.

So he is a naive positivist. Sad. That the president of the AAAS would have so little understanding of history and philosophy of science is pathetic. He doesn¡¯t even realize that he just disqualified Darwinism by his own criteria of science. Clearly evolutionary theory involves heavy doses of belief, while ID entails sound scientific practices similar to those used in cryptography and archaeology. Evolution is neither testable nor repeatable, yet is maintained with such tenacity that any observation, no matter how contrary, becomes retroactively forced into the belief system. And who is Leshner to teach about wisdom, responsibility and integrity? Did those moral qualities evolve, too? If so, they are without foundation; if not, he has conceded the existence of moral absolutes, and by extension, a moral Lawgiver.
All his propaganda tactics and fallacies are explained in the Baloney Detector. Leshner should become a political speechwriter where his skills would be more appropriate.