I had at first written a snarky rebuttal, but deleted it because I couldn't figure out what the hell the point would be. Babu has written this very thing so many times, and he is both not too well educated about biology, and married to a Christian creationist ideology that he must make the facts fit. Just go read the darned thing, and then ask yourself how it is that he knows that DNA could never have originated by chance alone. What does it mean, in Babu's interpretation, that something came about by 'chance'? Then ask yourself if that is what serious scientists actually posit about the origin of DNA.
He does end the article by a statement that I have not seen the likes of before:
Both sides of the evolution/intelligent design controversy should have the opportunity to present their scientific arguments to students. No one is being forced to believe in God, so there is no real violation of separation of church and state.No one is being forced to believe in God... so we can say anything we want to anyone anywhere? Tell elementary school students that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, and that if they don't believe that, they will end up in Hell. As long as you don't force them to believe it, this is not separation of church and state? Then what does this word 'force' really mean? That you enter their brains and force the neurons to fire in a manner that makes the brain believe in creationism?
What the hell is the point of these inane articles? Is this really what he does for a living? How does that work?
It's ok. If he's presenting his scientific arguments to students, then the constitution requires equal time for pastafarianism. In fact, once you've allotted equal time for every religion's scientific arguments, they'll have approximately 3 minutes each. Shame the students won't learn any evolutionary biology, but it would present a useful lesson nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteVery true. "Both" is not really a word that makes any sense in this context.
ReplyDelete