ID advocate admits it ‘has no content’
”I’m not pushing to have [ID] taught as an ‘alternative’ to Darwin, and neither are they,” he says in response to one question about Discovery’s agenda. ”What’s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there’s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.”
The evolution of George Gilder Boston Globe, 7/27 [linked from pharyngula]
It’s refreshing to see an ID advocate admit that there is no content to intelligent design.
As for their claim that they all they want to do is teach the controversy — great. Teach the controversy. Teach scientific controversies in science class. Since there’s no content to ID, there’s no scientific controversy. So what kind of controversy is it? It’s a political & social controversy. Political & social controversies absolutely should be taught in schools, in history, social science, current issues type classes. Heck, even comparative religion classes — why not? I’d love to see kids learning about other political & social controversies about children’s education: the controversy over sex ed, for instance, and how right-wingers want to teach abstinence & sexual ethics instead of sexual and reproductive healthcare. Or hey, how about we ‘teach the controversy’ regarding going to war on disputed evidence?
algorithmically similar posts:
» best commentary on right-wing frothing about Paul Mirecki, 2005-12-19 (score:30)» raise your hands if you’re glad you’re not raising a kid in kansas, 2005-05-07 (score:27)
» PZ Myers speaks for me*, 2005-12-22 (score:26)
» potential evidence for intelligent design, 2005-11-10 (score:23)
