Time, tumult and the science of survival (Requires Login)
This article appeared yesterday in the Chicago Tribune by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. It doesn't say a whole lot new but I thought it was a good illustration. I was particularly interested in this quote:
But creationism, currently repackaged as intelligent design, is not an argument of the same character. It 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 does in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class, astrology in a psychology class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In a class on 20th Century European history, nobody would want to grant denial of the Holocaust the status of one half of a "let's teach both sides of the controversy" treatment.
The none to thinly veiled implication being that people who believe in creation are not just wrong but stupid dults. These guys are the quintessential Ontological Materialists trivializing anyone who does not share there philosophical commitments and lumping them with young earth Scientific Creationists. They are the mirror image of the Scientific Creationists who see all others as the enemy of God and scripture. (See Science and Chrisitanity (Part 14) )