Just today on a talk radio program hosted by Dom Giordano who is a local, fairly conservative talk radio guy, a caller declared that the ousting of the Dover School Board was terrible, that the Evolutionists go to far and infringe on freedom of speech. Furthermore he asks, how can Evolution be a good theory if it is constantly being changed? Intelligent Design, he says, has been well understood for hundreds of years and does not change.
The caller is right in that science understanding is changeable and Intelligent Design understanding is not.
One thing that is annoying here is that Dom Giordano did not challenge this guy. In fact, he has been on the warpath condemning the Dover vote and those who in court oppose ID and also scientists who he says are are closed minded. Giordano is usually pretty reasonable though he can go overboard on isseus at times. And this is one of those times.
Another local radio guy, Michael Smerconish, who recently sat in for Bill O'Reilly, was singing the same tune, dismissing biologists who insist that Evolution really did happen, and by the way, have evidence to support the contention.
Evidence is not needed for those two radio guys, and it seemed to me, most of the callers. Very few callers had anything to say in defense of science.
Just how much evidence is needed to prove a point? In this case the claim of Evolution can seem startling and who wants to think that they are not so far removed from a Chimp? But the fact is that there is not just a lot of evidence pointing to that conclusion but there is mountain of evidence, and the mountain is growing. That is not good enough it seems.
so ... logically then it makes sense to fiercely adopt a theory, The Theory of Intelligent Design, that has no mountain of evidence, not even a molehill of evidence. Right?
|