Difference between revisions of "Arguments about evolution"
(Undo revision 435600 by Special:Contributions/AutoFire (User talk:AutoFire) Nonsense.) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
In summary, if some people use evolution to justify mass murder, that's no reason to stop teaching about it. But if ID is used to justify religious belief, that linkage means ID can't be taught. This is rank [[hypocrisy]]. | In summary, if some people use evolution to justify mass murder, that's no reason to stop teaching about it. But if ID is used to justify religious belief, that linkage means ID can't be taught. This is rank [[hypocrisy]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Science]] | ||
Revision as of 01:56, April 24, 2008
Arguments about evolution generally use a double standard. For example, if the implications of a theory are offensive (to "our side"), we refuse to consider the theory.
Evolution has been used to justify "Social Darwinism" and implicated as leading to the Holocaust wherein Hitler's Nazi government murdered 11 million civilians. Darwinists say it's not fair to criticize evolution on the grounds that non-scientists used it as a basis for bad social policy.
However, intelligent design is often linked with Creationism, and on that basis it has been dismissed from serious consideration. Instead of concentrating on responding to the critique ID makes, for example, the concept of irreducible complexity, evolution advocates have gone to court to suppress any mention of ID in schools; and have sabotaged the careers of educators, scientists and even editors who have dared to present this critique.
In summary, if some people use evolution to justify mass murder, that's no reason to stop teaching about it. But if ID is used to justify religious belief, that linkage means ID can't be taught. This is rank hypocrisy.
