One side can be wrong

Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, and Jerry Coyne have written an article in The Guardian about the "teach both sides" argument for ID.
One side can be wrong. The money quote:

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.


nudecybot said...

Yeah good quote unfortunately logic is no match for ignorance. What concerns me above all is that this "debate" is actually considered worthy of so much sound and fury...uh I mean discourse and writing. I blame it all on our society not prioritizing education which results in a large population who don't have the facts and can't think for themselves.

Pacanukeha said...

Even worse
'The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.'