Evolution – The scientific front
Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne wrote an article in the Guardian to argue why “accepting ‘intelligent design’ in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences”.
“[Intelligent design] is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for “both theories” would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?”
Read the whole article in the Guardian: One side can be wrong (The Guardian, September 1, 2005), or a critique of the Intelligent Design movement by Jerry Coyne, published in New Republic: The Case Against Intelligent Design (The New Republic, Issue: 22 August 05, filetype: pdf).
One Comment so far ...
“Every neo-liberal shares the guilt…”
I really fail to see the connection here. I did not expect your anti-liberal obsession to hold liberalism (or neo-liberalism as you say… whatever) responsible for this too. You should know that liberalism was never kind to organized religion (but I have the feeling you already knew that). The difference is that, although I cannot agree with these un-scientific (mambo-jumbo, as I say) theories, I do not want to censor them, neither do I want to send the people that believe in them to Siberia. I don’t have a problem with people believing whatever they want. I will have a problem if a day comes when my daughter will have to study this nonsense at school.
Oh, and something else. Don’t call these people liberals, or neo-liberals for that matter, to their face. You might live to regret it. If you decided to pay a more closer attention, you might realize that these people hate liberalism even more than you do.
“Capitalism is killing us, killing science (after it finished with literature and art!!), …”
You’re shooting at ghosts. Capitalism is killing nobody. It creates wealth and prosperity and it promotes freedom. Governments kill. Puppet politicians controlled by big-business kill. Populist collectivists kill. The only thing that capitalism is killing is poverty.
And a question: why did all those great painters, composers, writers, dancers etc. risked their lives to flee from the Soviets? Were they all bourgeois pigs serving capitalism? If something was killing art (and artists), and is still killing it wherever it exists, is collectivism.
“When you denounce the un-scientific (and apologetic) approach of neo-liberalism…”
I thought we were over with this nonsense (for want of a better word). I am using whatever spare time I can find to write the position you asked me to, trying to be as accurate and impassionate as possible, and you begin with these insults again. What a shame… You keep on thinking that by calling something un-scientific long enough, your own position will gain credibility. That is exactly what these ID people are trying to do. Fortunately, things do not work that way, at least not for those that believe in rationalism and honest discourse.
“[…] otherwise: pox on both of your houses.”
Pox on my house? Very mature. Very mature indeed. I don’t believe that you actually mean what you just wrote here, I hope not.
Comment on September 18, 2005 12:49 am