NYT continues its shameful decline
As much philosophical worldview as scientific hypothesis, intelligent design challenges Darwin’s theory of natural selection by arguing that some organisms are too complex to be explained by evolution alone, pointing to the possibility of supernatural influences. While mutual acceptance of evolution and the existence of God appeals instinctively to a faithful public, intelligent design is shunned as heresy in mainstream universities and science societies as untestable in laboratories.
Scientifically speaking, ID doesn’t argue anything. It postulates.
Predicted next headline from the NYT: opinions differ on moon landing, shape of earth. Bush says alternative theories on the holocaust should be taught. Flying Spaghetti Monster takes Broadway by storm.
I wonder how far the wingnuts would like to take this fairness doctrine of theirs. If it is important for ID to be taught in schools so that people understand what the controversy is about, shouldn’t it also be a given that natural selection should be taught in churches so that the people arguing against it understand what the controversy that they started is all about?