Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
The Future Igor Aug 21, 2005
How sad. I cannot figure out why anyone would want to censor those with opposing views. Be careful, an axe can cut both ways. I myself neither believe nor disbelieve either Intelligent Design nor Darwinism. Flaws in
both theories. And that is exactly what they are. Theories. Oh, and by the way, we still teach both Euclidian and Non-Euclidian Geometry. Both have their place in mathematics. In order to "Talk Reason" we must have differing opinions. Censorship is non defendable position. "My way or none," as the
world's dictators have pointed out to us. Reasoning seems to have failed here as emotionalism runs rampant through these articles and articles.
Related Articles: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?

Title Author Date
The Future Rossow, Amiel Aug 30, 2005
Dear Talk Reason: This is in response to the letter of Aug. 21, 2005 signed by "Igor."
Igor seems to confuse two completely different topics: one is about freedom of speech and the other about what should be taught in science classes of public schools. His philippics against the alleged call for a censorship on
the part of defenders of evolution is either a result of abject misunderstanding of the situation or perhaps a result of his intention to deliberately misrepresent the actual situation in pursuit of a certain agenda.
No evolutionary biologist or any other genuine scientists has ever suggested any form of a censorship. Anti-evolutionists enjoy compete freedom of speech as they endlessly publish their views in newspapers, talk on radio and TV, publish scores of books and papers, and nobody has ever suggested that all that anti-science activity should be suppressed (however good for public's education it would be). However, when the question is what should be taught in science classes of public schools, it is a completely different story.
Following "Igor"'s logic, in astronomy classes also astrology should be taught as well as the "theory" asserting that the earth is flat -- there are after all some people believing in flat earth who have their society and freely publish their views, but should we teach their nonsense in science classes? The same applies to teaching, along with evolutionary biology, also "intelligent design," which is the subject of Jason Rosenhouse's well substantiated article. Rosenhouse does not suggest that the anti-science activity of ID advocates should be suppressed or that they should be denied
opportunities to freely express their views, regardless of how unscientific those views are. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our society and evolutionary biologists firmly and unequivocally stand for it. This has nothing to do with teaching ID in schools. Contrary to what "Igor" seems to think, there is no equivalency between evolution theory and intelligent design. Evolution theory is one of the most mercilessly verified theories in
science, supported by an immense amount of empirical evidence and having an enormous explanatory power. On the other hand there is no "theory" of "intelligent design" but only philosophical ruminations usually bordering on
theology and lacking any empirical support whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of biologists are firm in their support for evolution theory while the critics of it are just a tiny collection of philosophers and theologians with an insignificant fraction of real scientists mostly specializing in
areas remote from evolutionary biology. "Igor"'s rants against alleged censorship are void of meaning even if they result from his sincere misunderstanding rather than from some malicious intent.

Amiel Rossow
Related Articles: Should We "Teach the Controversy"?