Tey mentioned Bush's "faith based initiatives." Baker remarked that government used to be engaged in "fact based initiatives." Really? The faith thing may be new, but politicians have never been very good with facts.
They're talking with a Wisconsin legislator who is trying to pass a bill called the Pseudo-science prevention act. It's targeted at creationism, though it has general requirements that ideas be testable, and also invoke natural causes. I have mixed feelings about this wording. I firmly believe that if creationists could produce a shred of real evidence for supernatural agency, it could be counted as science. If Behe prayed over a petri dish and the bacteria sprouted flagella, that would be evidence for supernatural agency. All they ever do, though, is say "Scientists don't know X. Therefore God." Also, I know that somewhere, a creationist will try to use the testability clause to get rid of evolution.
Rep. Berceau pointed out that the bill wouldn't prohibit talking about Intelligent Design as an example of something that isn't science.
She mentioned polls. A lot of polls beg the question in favor of ID. Take, for example, this recent bit of propaganda:
According to the Institute, polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when biology teachers present the scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution, they should also teach the scientific evidence against it.This assumes that there is credible evidence in favor of Intelligent Design.
Great line from Dan Barker: "I used to preach against evolution without really understanding it."
That's just a few choice bits. The stream is done, but in a day or two it should be posted at the FFRF's website.