Intelligent design (ID) creationists often appeal to the innate reasonableness of most Americans. “When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school curriculum students should learn about both perspectives” (source).
The problem ID proponents face is that there aren't two groups of experts who disagree. There's a group of scientists recognize that evolution happens, and a second group of dilletantes who are trying to insert supernatural causes into the scientific curriculum. As Judge John E. Jones III put it in his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, “A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.”
Now young-earth creationists are a different crowd, but P. Z. Meyers points out that when they say “Teach the controversy,” what they mean is “Teach evolution and creationism and conclude that creationism is right.” In other words, manufacture a controversy where none exists, and reach the wrong conclusion.
“Teach the controversy”? It makes about as much sense as teaching that tuberculosis can be cured by eating wolf livers.
Leave a comment