More by Eugenie Scott
To anyone familiar with the history of the antievolution movement, the attacks on evolution are perhaps the most obvious link between ID and earlier forms of creationism.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
The objections to evolution are not serious scientific arguments; they are superficially investigated and poorly reasoned talking points.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
Dogma doesn’t build better medical devices; good science does.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
The actual point of the peppered moth example—that it illustrates how camouflage, a common adaptation that appears designed, can evolve through a simple natural process—is always completely ignored.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
The critiques of evolution offered in such ID literature, however, is recognizable as a proper subset of the critiques offered by creation science literature, and they are no more valid.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
In special creationism, living things do not share common ancestry….common ancestry is the fundamental difference between special creationism and evolution.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
Significantly, the first publication to use the phrase intelligent design was not a theoretical paper but a high school textbook, Of Pandas and People! Ordinarily, one does the research first and then produces the textbook.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
Three of intelligent design’s most damaging constitutional problems: its singling out of evolution education for reform, its explicitly religious background, and it status as unsuccessful science.
Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (2006)
All Eugenie Scott quotes →