Wednesday, November 14, 2007

intelligent design vs evolution

anyone see last night's nova/pbs program about intelligent design and the teaching of it alongside evolution in science classes in dover schools?

one doesn't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to see that intelligent design is but creationism in different clothes. i particularly loved the draft document they showed supplied as a supporting draft to the book themselves that condemns them

see the discovery institute's (very reasonable...) response to the program: must be a typo. should read

philip johnson, the father of intelligent design:

How do you explain our genetic relatedness with chimpanzees?

Johnson: There is a relatedness. But what does it mean? Say we have almost 99 percent of our genes in common with chimpanzees. We also have at least 25 percent of our genes in common with bananas. There are these commonalities that exist throughout life. Do they point to a common evolutionary process or a common creator? That is the question for interpretation.

The genes are going to win when people ask me about that great degree of similarity between human genes and chimpanzee genes. I answer that genes must not be anywhere near as important as we have been led to believe. If there were that great a commonality between chimps and humans, it ought to be relatively easy to breed chimps and come up with a human being, or by genetic engineering to change a chimp into a human. We ought to see humans occasionally being born to chimps or perhaps chimps born into human families.

... i repeat: "genes must not be anywhere near as important as we have been led to believe."

draw your own conclusions, and next time you go to the doctor, ask him just how important genes are with respect to causing congenital diseases and disorders.

No comments: