As part of (what I see as) the overall trend away from rationalism and clear thinking in America, “intelligent design” arguments are becoming more and more common. But repeating a sophism over and over doesn’t make it any more true. So here are a few critiques, should you need them: H. Allen Orr’s Devolution (warning: popup) from the New Yorker, John Rennie’s 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from ScientificAmerican, and (but of course) Richard Dawkins’ Creationism: God’s Gift to the Ignorant from the London Times.
I haven’t had time to give these (culled from MeFi) a full read yet, but they look promising. I’ll post a comment after I’ve had a chance to review. For the record, I think it’s certainly possible to square faith with science. But I don’t think anyone benefits from faith at the expense of science: that way madness lies.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Possibly Related Posts: