Still wallowing in all the words stirred up by the Prez’s seemingly off-hand remark about “intelligent design.” Still determined not to invest a lot of consonants and vowels on an incident that is being covered by so many others.
I’ve spent WAY too much time for over a week reading this column and that response. I’ve gotten frustrated at misleading pleas for balance, like the one by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker
published around the country under various titles. (“There’s room at the table for intelligent design theory” in The Oregonian
.). I’ve chuckled at clever repartee on the heavy-duty science weblogs like Panda’s Thumb
, marveled at the passions stirred by this issue, and appreciated the thoughtful responses by the many defenders of science in the blogoshpere and in mainstream publications.
Even if I could, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to reiterate all that I have been absorbing, but I will highlight a couple of items I haven’t yet seen mentioned elsewhere.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the way through it yet, but the Aug 22 issue of The New Republic
has a lengthy article, “The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name
” (registration required) by Jerry Coyne, that looks at the evolution of ID from its creationist roots.
magazine came out with a cover story about evolution and religion that tried oh-so-hard to be “balanced,” the Aug 15 issue of Newsweek
has a forceful Jonathan Alter column (“Monkey See, Monkey Do
”) with the pull-no-punches callout
“Offering ID as an alternative to evolution is a cruel joke. It walks and talks like science but in the lab performs worse than medieval alchemy.”
And finally, some coverage from the UK, where the local religious right is going after the school science curriculum, the Aug 12 Times Online
has these words from Mark Henderson (“Dangerous models to create
“The best schools do not simply teach a body of knowledge. They teach children how to think, to question, to reach conclusions for themselves based on evidence, not authority or hearsay. Science encourages all these qualities; creationism promotes their antitheses.”
[Note: I’ve registered on Technorati. If you find me from there – or anywhere else – please leave a comment so I will know that I am not just talking to myself