Sunday, February 20, 2005

Effective Dismissal of "Intelligent Design"

And witty, too. New York Times Magazine: "Unintelligent Design", by Jim Holt.

Also worth reading, although scary as hell, "The Crusade Against Evolution" from the October 2004 issue of Wired.

(The scariest letter-to-the-editor over the piece? This one:
The struggle between evolutionists and intelligent design proponents has, in reality, very little to do with science. The absence of intermediary species in the fossil record proves evolution a bust. If ID is truth, then the human race is accountable to a higher moral power. If evolution is truth, then we are accountable only to each other in terms of morals, ethics, and behavior. [Emphasis mine.]

Evolutionists cling so fervently to their outmoded beliefs because ID is the only viable alternative.

Paul Black
Saluda, North Carolina

Yes, because that would be terrible, wouldn't it? Accountable only to each other rather than trying to curry favor with the great referee in the sky. I also love the notion that evolutionary theory is "outmoded," and by implication that "intelligent design" (a term that should always, in my opinion, be surrounded by ironic quotes) is the cutting edge of science. Because, of course, no one ever thought to posit "It is so because God made it so and who are we to question His wisdom?" before now.)

No comments: