Biologist James Q. Wilson concisely refutes the argument that “intelligent design” should be taught as a “theory” competing with the theory of evolution:
When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach “intelligent design,” he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a “theory” and intelligent design is a “theory,” so students should look at both theories.
But this view confuses the meaning of the word “theory.” In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them “variables”) that can be tested by factual observations. . .
0 Responses to “Why “intelligent design” simply isn’t science”