What jeezuz me off is the way that people are serious in considering "Intelligent Design". As many, many, many articles (by qualified commentators) have pointed out, "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.
It is founded on arguments from ignorance, appeals to emotion, argument from consequences and a complete misunderstanding of the goals and methodology of science and reason. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to suggest any sort of "design" in the world. That creationists (sorry: "IDers") do not understand the theory of evolution; that they feel that there is "more" to life; that they don't like the alleged consequences of rationalism (which rationalists dispute) and that they don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a speaking out of one's arse tells nothing of the validity of the scientific method or any of the theories it suggests.
Equal time only applies to equally valid alternatives. Science is not fair: the theories that adequately explain observed phenomena are valid and those that do not are invalid. It makes no more sense to teach ID in science classes than to teach poetry in those same classes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment