From his HBO program Real Time, here’s Bill Maher on Intelligent Design:
New rule: You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap.
President Bush recently suggested that public schools should teach intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution, because, after all, evolution is “just a theory.” Then the president renewed his vow to drive the terrorists straight over the edge of the earth.
…
There aren’t necessarily two sides to every issue. If there were, the Republicans would have an opposition party. And an opposition party would point out that even though there is a debate in schools and government about this, there is no debate among scientists.
Evolution is supported by the entire scientific community. Intelligent design is supported by guys on line to see The Dukes of Hazzard. And the reason there is no real debate is that intelligent design isn’t real science. It’s the equivalent of saying that the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold because it’s a god.
…
“Babies come from storks” is not a competing school of thought in medical school. We shouldn’t teach both. The media shouldn’t equate both.
Adam Frix | 23-Aug-05 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
I’m not religious in the least; however, I am not convinced that “intelligent design” (to use the current phrase) is the opposite of evolution. In theory (pun intended, I guess), the concepts can co-exist. Let’s admit that we simply don’t know enough about the origin of the universe, or life on earth, to say that it wasn’t the work of a “supreme being”. It could be that such a being created the system under which the earth and its creatures are currently evolving, and have been for hundreds of millions of years. In other words, I’d hate to think that science would eliminate that out of hand with the information we have today. That’s as bad as others assuming “intelligent design” as fact and going from there. While we have plenty of information on evolution, thanks to the scientific method and lots of research, we simply don’t have enough information to make any flat statements about the actual origin of life. Until we do, keep running our existing and new information through the scientific method. But please, don’t flat-out deny “intelligent design” or whatever you want to call it as the origin of life; those that do look just as bad as those who blindly accept it and go from there. Imagine the doors that don’t open when a mind is so closed as to deny *any* avenue of investigation, no matter how remotely applicable.
[Comment moved by site owner.]