It’s tempting to quote huge swathes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne’s article from today’s Guardian as it does such a great job of debunking the idea that “intelligent design” should be taught in science classes. But I’ll resist and just give you a couple of the best paragraphs. Here’s one good one
Intelligent design […] is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for “both theories” would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?
And here’s another
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.
Oh look, I can’t do it justice by giving you extracts. Just go and read the whole thing yourself.
Oh, and it’s good to see the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Pass Notes.