Teaching Evolution

A blog devoted to teaching evolution, both in our schools and in our communities.

Monday, August 22, 2005

New York Times: Darwinists and Doubters

This is the type of article I don't like because it doesn't really tell the reader much of anything. OK, so some people say the complexity of life is proof of a designer, and others say otherwise. But how does that advance the story? If I could find a historian somewhere who said the Roman Empire had never existed and was simply the work of a bunch of fakers who made bogus artifacts, would the Times give my historian his say in its pages?


At 6:45 AM, Blogger dhodge said...

Do you think that it is more important for the media to debunk intelligent design or provide stories like this one that provide insight into the lack of scientific proof underpining intelligent design without taking a side in the debate? ID lacks any real scientific basis and therefore, it does not deserve to be involved in a debate against science. The problem is that debunking ID is akin to debunking religion. I think articles like this one that say ID is an alternative explanation for the development of life on earth, albeit a very weak one, are useful and they ultimately help the evolution side of the debate.

At 8:00 AM, Anonymous Rashid Muhammad said...

I don't know MDS. I mean this article quotes Dr. Doolittle speculating on blood clotting in animals. This reeks of rabid Darwinist fantasy to me.


Post a Comment

<< Home