An interesting discussion on why teaching evolution is important. I followed a few more links on this blog and found this discussion on why intelligent design advocates Dembski and Wells are not the Galileo's of our day, despite the fact that the intelligent design crowd often considers them as such:
Galileo's peers held him in almost universally high regard. So did Einstein's. So did Wegener's. Not all of their peers may have agreed with them, but those peers did recognize their genius. And why would they not? Each of these fellows made excellent and profound contributions to science throughout their lives.
On the other hand, with very few exceptions, Dembski's and Wells' peers in the scientific community seem to hold them in poor regard, mainly because of the paucity of their output and general poor quality of that which they have produced. Certainly they are not luminaries.
And then later, this zinger:
William Dembski doesn't have very impressive output either. He sure has a lot of degrees for someone who has contributed so little to science. Notice that he has far more contributions of a religious nature than a scientific bent. [emphasis mine]
Someone outside of the natural sciences isn't fooled by the propaganda machine of the ID activists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment