Agence France-Presse reports:
The US science community is embroiled in a caustic fight over the theory that a higher intelligence and not Darwinist evolution is largely responsible for life on Earth.Now, it's true that a few scientists who should know better, like Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, propound untestable hypotheses of "intelligent design". But to say that the whole American scientific community is "embroiled in a caustic fight" over the validity of evolution is simply untrue.
In fact, the article itself explains that intelligent design's support comes from "a handful of biologists and non-scientists". Yet it goes on to claim that intelligent design "has put Darwinists on the defensive", warning that "the debate has become more rancorous in recent months."
Yeah, sure it has. This is about as much of a debate as a parent telling a child he can't have ice cream before dinner. The kid can whine all he wants, but he's not getting any ice cream.
But wait! Later on, we find another reversal:
Amid growing animosity, both sides agree that proving intelligent design in traditional scientific terms is next to impossible.Translation: Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's religious faith wearing a lab coat.
Why is AFP puffing up a handful of true believers into a credible scientific challenge? Is it all just a clumsy attempt to make U.S. scientists look like bible-thumpin' hicks?
5 comments:
Is it all just a clumsy attempt to make U.S. scientists look like bible-thumpin' hicks?
Yeah, that's basically it. Sad, isn't it?
Posted by Steven Den Beste
I view it as a compliment. French and German scientists are leaving their nations to come work in the U.S. because they have a lot less red tape to deal with here.
So the French press has to resort to lies to try and maintain national pride.
Posted by Dave Justus
"propound untestable hypotheses of "intelligent design". "
i tend to disagree. The fact that specices change cannot be denided, but the idea that evolution could produce humans from a one celled organism, and that the survial of the fittest explaines every single biologial concept - is so far fetched.
The world was either created by somthing else or it happened by chance. If it just happened by chance everythign is meaningless and nothing matters. It is strange how nobody ever acts like everythign is meaningless and nothing matters.
Posted by cubicle
One's own emotional need to feel important is a poor foundation on which to build a scientific understanding of the universe.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Perhaps AFP's science reporter(s) is just a journalist who happened to take some science classes. Have you read the October 2004 issue of Wired about "intelligent design"?
Posted by Comrade_Tovarich
Post a Comment