The antepenultimate thing anyone needs is another screed against intelligent design. But these surprised me with the quality of their argumentation. Now you must suffer through them and their non-silliness.
- Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne explaining why teaching "both sides" means the intellectual terrorists have already won. (Dawkins of "The Selfish Gene".)
- John Paulos (he of "Innumeracy") on similarities between biology and economics.
4 comments:
sadly, argument is not what is needed. if mere rational argument were effective, the problem would not exist.
what we really need to do is construct some artificial social order out of evolutionary theory. something that can be used as a tool of oppression, and which inspires its adherents to violence at the slightest suggestion that anyone, anywhere, might think differently about something that has no bearing whatsoever on the way we lead our lives from one day to the next.
Rejecting rationality in public policy (which, as you point out, is the issue) does affect us, even if this manifestation of it does not.
auxrwd
Faith is usually considered a belief in something when no hard proof exists.
The people arguing for 'intelligent design' in schools have little faith.
tormp, I think you've identified the nature of the warriors hiding in the horse. I can't see into the minds of ID advocates any more than they can, but it's hard to imagine why they'd be pushing it so relentlessly if they didn't expect and desire that it affect lots of kids' life choices. Our familiarity with the old philosophical saw about whether fate (created or otherwise) affects how we live is itself rational in a way we must excise if we want to be able to get inside these particular small minds.
Post a Comment