... but first, a rant against Creationists.
Why is this trial even necessary? Why can't these people simply acknowledge one FACT -- inarguable, inescapable: "intelligent design" is not science.
There's no way to test whether an "unidentified intelligence" -- as many reporters seemed to have been conned into calling it -- created life. (I would call it "supernatural being," if I were the reporter on the story -- which I probably will never be, given my quite biased view of the subject. But kudos to AP reporter Martha Raffaele for consistently and accurately referring to ID as an "idea," instead of a "theory.")
If it can't be tested it's not science, and if it's not science it doesn't belong in biology class. The end. Is there a lawyer in the house -- why wasn't this case won on summary judgment?
While we're on the topic of myth and science, this is very cool. Almost as good as catching the Loch Ness Monster on tape, in my book. Shame, though, that they had to badly wound the thing in order to film it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment