Today I had an e-mail exchange with a writer for National Review Online. He is a fierce critic of "Intelligent Design," claiming it is "not science." Fair enough. I asked him, via e-mail, if using science to question the claims of evolution was itself not science. That, I explained, was how I saw the serious proponents of "Intelligent Design" operating -- not so much "if not evolution, therefore a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is required," but rather something more akin to "evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."
His response: "Two wrongs don't make a right. Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."
So, using science to question to the claims of another scientific theory (evolution) is non-scientific.
Either the theory of evolution is completely unassailable, or there's some horribly inconsistent thinking going on out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment