anti-ID article
Aug. 31st, 2005 12:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petardierHere's a great article from the NYT about (un)Intelligent Design. Finally! It was preceded by a number of articles that strove far too hard to be even-handed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
Among many other excellent points the article notes that there is evidence for the evolution of the eye, an organ ID proponents claim is too complicated to have evolved. It's amazing what you can learn if actually look into a question instead of deciding the answer in advance!
The article also notes that the ID crowd is not fighting their battles in the scientific arena. If they had a testable hypothesis, they should not be afraid to do that. Instead, they are trying to bamboozle the public, fabricate a controversy, and then claim that the controversy is worth teaching. Here's the article's summary if the ID main tactic:
Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.
I'll note in passing that this same tactic of obfuscation is frequently used by Republicans in many other contexts where the facts are against them. Global warming, drilling in ANWAR, Social Security, stem cell research, and birth control are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
And on a totally different note - if the ID crowd weren't impervious to satire, this would finish them off:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
It's The Onion, doing what they do best!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
Among many other excellent points the article notes that there is evidence for the evolution of the eye, an organ ID proponents claim is too complicated to have evolved. It's amazing what you can learn if actually look into a question instead of deciding the answer in advance!
The article also notes that the ID crowd is not fighting their battles in the scientific arena. If they had a testable hypothesis, they should not be afraid to do that. Instead, they are trying to bamboozle the public, fabricate a controversy, and then claim that the controversy is worth teaching. Here's the article's summary if the ID main tactic:
Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.
I'll note in passing that this same tactic of obfuscation is frequently used by Republicans in many other contexts where the facts are against them. Global warming, drilling in ANWAR, Social Security, stem cell research, and birth control are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
And on a totally different note - if the ID crowd weren't impervious to satire, this would finish them off:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
It's The Onion, doing what they do best!
