Look at this:
Biology and “intelligent design” are not rival scientific theories. Biology’s central proposition is evolution. Intelligent design does not rest on the scientific method or scientific evidence. The Discovery Institute is not a “think tank.” It does not engage in hypothesis testing. It does not make testable predictions of “intelligent design.” It does not employ biologists if they commit what the Institute’s leaders consider the unbiblical heresy of believing in the standard biological canon about evolution. The only example of “scientific evidence” the article cites as supporting “intelligent design” is the observation that life is “complex.” Evolution cannot produce “complexity” because…. No evidence is needed to support this ipse dixit (it is because I assert it is). The assertion is testable through modeling and through studies of the fossil and genetic record, both of which falsify the assertion. There is no theory of “intelligent design.” The brilliant satirical response to this thinly disguised evangelical theology is Bobby Henderson’s creation of the mock religion worshiping the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an alternative explanation of the origin of species. Tennessee biology teachers should stage a mass Flying Spaghetti Monster teach-in to respond to the Tennessee law.
The WSJ news article on the Tennessee law is bizarre on another level. The WSJ concentrates on business news and we have tens of thousands of businesses that make money (hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenues) by practicing real biology. …
William K. Black, “WSJ’s Weird Embrace Of Pseudo Science And The War On Real Science,” New Economic Perspectives, Apr. 14, 2012
Real biology does not, of course, depend on Darwinism. Darwinists’ careers depend on Darwinism.
Real biology depends on evidence, which does not seem to be a priority in William Black’s life.
See also: Why news media can’t acknowledge what the Tennessee schools bill actually says
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista
Follow UD News at Twitter!