Someone recentlyÃ‚Â brownbagged me this: Apparently, a shrill screed has been accepted for the science journal Gene on “Intelligent design and biological complexity”, announcing that
Europe so far blissfully seems to have remained relatively immune to the intellectual virus named “intelligent design”. This virus certainly is a problem in the country in which I have lived over the last thirty years, the United States, where about 40% of the people are said to believe that evolution never took place, that evolution is just a theory, not a fact, and a wrong theory at that. To give themselves an edge, the “creationists” Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the dominant stripe of anti-evolutionists in the United States — have decided some years ago (Pennock, 2003) to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars who rise in defense of a legitimate alternative scientific theory, intelligent design. Clearly, in the US it is not sufficient to laugh off this disguise. Creationists have proven to exert a sometimes decisive influence on the American political process and thereby on world history. Their educational and political militancy, linked to erroneous beliefs, are weighty reasons to keep them in check.
It goes on. And on. And on, actually.
Well, if this is Gene‘s idea of science, Darwinism is clearly in a steep decline. If I did not know that already, I sure would now.
Essentially, they don’t have much evidence thatÃ‚Â Darwinism is true.Ã‚Â So they must denounce anyone who doubts it.
If you want to know what intelligent design theory is really about, read tech guru George Gilder. Why be ignorant when information is free?
By the way: Thanks a zillion to all the people who bust a gut doing research into book titles, in connection with my two previous posts.
There is a career for youÃ‚Â in the marketing sector of the book publishing industry. You need to be aware of the two-drink minimum, but apart from that …
Titles are a fine art. I should know. I came up with Faith@Science,Ã‚Â By Design or by Chance?Ã‚Â and Post-Darwinist, all pretty good. But it was a lot of work, especially on a one-drink maximum.
For those just joining us, pour yourselves a drink.Ã‚Â In twoÃ‚Â Ã‚Â previous posts, I hadÃ‚Â said that IÃ‚Â know Darwin doesn’t really matter if Michael Shermer must write a book claiming heÃ‚Â doesÃ‚Â SO matter.
It’s amazing how much research got done on the word “Matters” in book titles. Someone can probably use it somewhere.
But I don’t see any reason to change my viewÃ‚Â that if Darwin really mattered, no one would be urging the point in a book title, when the ID controversy is actually hot, hot, hot.