The Recency of Intelligent Design
The Observer News
Apollo Beach et al.
Hank Tippins, in your Oct. 21 issue, presents the laffable proposition that evolution is, as he phrases it, "a theory in crisis". He then goes on to tout so-called "intelligent design" (ID) as a viable alternative to it.
Mr. Tippins may as well have warned us that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor.
In fact both the Japanese and the proponents of ID have long since (hardly "recently") taken their best shot and been thoroly trounced. To see some of the details of ID's own Hiroshima, do a web search for the phrases "KItzmiller v. Dover Area School District" and "breathtaking inanity".
Mr. Tippins tries to pretend (most dishonestly) that ID has nothing to do with religious belief when in fact that's the ONLY thing it has to do with. ID has presented no evidence whatsoever in support of its own contentions; all it has done is fielded a few pathetically inadequate criticisms of evolution and then said "See! If evolution doesn't work, then ID is the only other possible explanation.". This does not constitute evidence, merely the sort of spectacularly bad debating technique that would bring ridicule on a high-school sophomore.
In fact, ID is SUCH bad science that the only possible way anybody would believe in it is BECAUSE of its religious basis, as religion is well known to cause people -- even scientists -- to behave and believe irrationally.
But I understand that, even as late as the 1960s, lone Japanese soldiers were turning up in the wilds of Borneo, still unaware that the war was over and that their side had been soundly defeated. I guess Mr. Tippins has some company, even if he doesn't have their excuse.
= = = = = =
Fundamentalists feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.