Home
Intelligent Design? How about an Intelligent Debate?
Evolution is the reigning scientific theory about how we got here. So teach it in schools. But what's wrong with mentioning that science sometimes revises itself? Or that a debate over evolution and intelligent design is raging? I can see all sorts of possibilities for papers that might really excite students. Talk about replacing perfunctory classroom discussion with spirited debate!
What's wrong with this?
What's wrong is that you might end up in court. That's what happened to science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania. The ACLU is arguing that it is against the Constitution to question evolution in the classroom.
"The elite," reports the American Spectator, "sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism are watching the trial breathlessly.
"Slate has assigned famed correspondent Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie Goodstein -- note that she is a religion (not science) reporter -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting, which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school board's star witness, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded scientist who perversely refuses to accept the overwhelming and obvious 'consensus' in favor of Darwinism.
"While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.
"Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the 'Darwinian theory of random natural selection.' Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not important and certainly not within the province of science, even if Aristotle, who probably believed in the gods and went to temple, did consider these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an intelligent cause."
What's wrong with this?
What's wrong is that you might end up in court. That's what happened to science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania. The ACLU is arguing that it is against the Constitution to question evolution in the classroom.
"The elite," reports the American Spectator, "sensing a chance to score a victory against critics of Darwinism are watching the trial breathlessly.
"Slate has assigned famed correspondent Hanna Rosin to cover the trial; the New York Times dispatched Laurie Goodstein -- note that she is a religion (not science) reporter -- to cover it. There is an all-hands-on-deck feel to the reporting, which has been made even more critical by the presence of the Dover school board's star witness, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded scientist who perversely refuses to accept the overwhelming and obvious 'consensus' in favor of Darwinism.
"While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.
"Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the 'Darwinian theory of random natural selection.' Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency? Well, that's not important and certainly not within the province of science, even if Aristotle, who probably believed in the gods and went to temple, did consider these questions in The Physics and concluded that nature requires an intelligent cause."
<< Loose Canon Home