Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(295)
-
▼
May 2010
(31)
- A Root Cause of Poverty
- Frame the Debate
- Lack of Imagination
- Happy Heresy Hunting, Part 2
- The Bechdel Test
- Happy Heresy Hunting
- Repeal the Civil Rights Act?
- Does it Pinch?
- Growtivation
- Advancing the Plot
- Further Cuts Will Follow
- It's About the Object of Our Faith
- Take it and Go Away
- When Envy Drives Economy
- What Would Jesus Boycott?
- Americans are So Individualistic... Or are They?
- The Truth is Getting Out
- A Sex Symbol Tries to Put the Genie Back in the Bo...
- The Other Kind of Porn
- Great Prayer of Corporate Repentance
- A Soul Shrivels
- No You Didn't
- Feathers
- Faith versus Works
- The Sun Also Rises
- Virtuous Essays
- Shack Up With Jesus
- Everywhere a Moral Cause
- If Only Politicians Were All This Smart...
- Dalrymple on the Problem of a Mastodonic Mankind
- Kill the Dragon
-
▼
May 2010
(31)
Labels
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Christianity Today has a useful little piece on the Intelligent Design versus Evolution debate.
Asking what advocates of intelligent design must do to gain credibility in the academy is a bit like asking a man when he stopped beating his wife. Such a question makes a prejudicial assumption.[HT: JT]
When queried about his history of spousal abuse, an innocent man should say, "I don't concede the premise of your question." Similarly, I would suggest that behind the Village Green question lurk some false assumptions. Indeed, the question seems to presuppose three things: the scientific community is uniformly opposed to the theory of intelligent design; the theory needs majority support in the academy to be credible; and there is good reason—such as lack of supporting evidence—for hostility toward the theory within academia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment