Ken Ham complains that evolutionists and non-Christians are intolerant towards creationists and Christians while mouthing platitudes about tolerance. I will not speak to his first example, for that is another topic entirely, but I do want to focus on the second example, quoting Jerry Coyne (author of the excellent book Why Evolution is True which I highly recommend as an overview of the evidence for evolution) as saying that having a belief in Intelligent Design should automatically disqualify any scientist from getting a job in the university. I want to say first that I completely agree with Coyne. Any scientist who expresses belief in the idea of Intelligent Design should be considered as unfit to teach science at the university level. Why do I say this? I'll address that in a moment.
But first is the idea that this makes Coyne "intolerant" of the beliefs of others, especially Christians. Ham quotes Coyne stating that he abhors religious discrimination is abhorrent, and it is, and he sees in this a contradiction. There is none, no matter what the Creationist-in-Chief thinks. Apparently Ham never got the memo that Intelligent Design is supposed to be a non-religious, scientific theory; stating that refusal to hire scientists with belief in ID is religious discrimination exposes this hoax for what it really is, theology trying to play at science.
To address the question at hand, there is no contradiction between condemning religious discrimination and stating that no university should hire scientists who believe in ID. ID is alleged to have been about science, not religion, as previously stated, and as such should be treated on its merits like any other scientific hypothesis. However, the only problem is that there is no evidence to support Intelligent Design "theory." None, not a shred. The only evidence brought to bear for ID are weak and feeble pleas for "tolerance", "teach the controversy" and numerous examples of supposed "irreducible complexity" that have been shown repeatedly to be not so irreducibly complex after all (see Ken Miller's book Only a Theory for a thorough debunking of several of the biggest alleged examples). ID is a pseudoscience unsupported by evidence, and there is no surer proof that a person fails to understand science than acceptance of this theory. Creationism in a cheap tuxedo is a description aptly applied to it. I applaud Jerry Coyne for taking a bold stand in regards to this issue. The poison of this idea has spread far enough already, and I do not want it in university science departments, thank you very much.
Does this make me intolerant? Well, in a way I guess it does. I refuse to tolerate distortions of the evidence. I refuse to tolerate lies told in the name of God, in promotion of a fraudulent science that fails in the face of evidence and rational scrutiny. I will not tolerate lies told about science, nor will I stand by while they spread lies about Darwin and evolution, and lies about scientists who accept evolution. I refuse to accept and applaud the destruction of science education in this country thanks to the tireless work of these anti-science cretins, nor will I stand by while they try to water down what remains of science education by inserting ID in the classroom.
I will not tolerate the intolerant.
But first is the idea that this makes Coyne "intolerant" of the beliefs of others, especially Christians. Ham quotes Coyne stating that he abhors religious discrimination is abhorrent, and it is, and he sees in this a contradiction. There is none, no matter what the Creationist-in-Chief thinks. Apparently Ham never got the memo that Intelligent Design is supposed to be a non-religious, scientific theory; stating that refusal to hire scientists with belief in ID is religious discrimination exposes this hoax for what it really is, theology trying to play at science.
To address the question at hand, there is no contradiction between condemning religious discrimination and stating that no university should hire scientists who believe in ID. ID is alleged to have been about science, not religion, as previously stated, and as such should be treated on its merits like any other scientific hypothesis. However, the only problem is that there is no evidence to support Intelligent Design "theory." None, not a shred. The only evidence brought to bear for ID are weak and feeble pleas for "tolerance", "teach the controversy" and numerous examples of supposed "irreducible complexity" that have been shown repeatedly to be not so irreducibly complex after all (see Ken Miller's book Only a Theory for a thorough debunking of several of the biggest alleged examples). ID is a pseudoscience unsupported by evidence, and there is no surer proof that a person fails to understand science than acceptance of this theory. Creationism in a cheap tuxedo is a description aptly applied to it. I applaud Jerry Coyne for taking a bold stand in regards to this issue. The poison of this idea has spread far enough already, and I do not want it in university science departments, thank you very much.
Does this make me intolerant? Well, in a way I guess it does. I refuse to tolerate distortions of the evidence. I refuse to tolerate lies told in the name of God, in promotion of a fraudulent science that fails in the face of evidence and rational scrutiny. I will not tolerate lies told about science, nor will I stand by while they spread lies about Darwin and evolution, and lies about scientists who accept evolution. I refuse to accept and applaud the destruction of science education in this country thanks to the tireless work of these anti-science cretins, nor will I stand by while they try to water down what remains of science education by inserting ID in the classroom.
I will not tolerate the intolerant.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
ReplyDelete(You might have noticed I'm on a David Hume kick, which often happens)