(Los Angeles Times)
For the advocates of intelligent design, the loveliness of nature is a second-class road to truth. It is “merely” aesthetic. In that regard, one notices that there is no campaign afoot to teach “divine inspiration” as the basis for the sacred works of Fra Angelico and Bach. “That’s next,” you say, and maybe it is next. The point here is that it wasn’t first, and it wasn’t first for a very good reason.
Once you have made intelligence supreme, you have elevated science to the highest form of knowing. And with that move, the self-appointed champions of religious tradition paint themselves into the same corner that they would like to lead us out of. Using intelligent design as a buttress against scientific hegemony is, to borrow from a Yiddish proverb, as outrageously self-defeating as murdering your parents and then pleading for leniency on the grounds that you’re an orphan.
1 comment:
It is quite common to see vestigial legs on whales. An obvious throwback, genetically, to earlier forms of the whale (a whale is linked genetically to Hippos BTW.)
For the intelligent design crowd-- "What is so 'intelligent' about putting legs on whales?"
Post a Comment