Recentemente na lista de comentários de um dos posts sobre a ascensão dos idiotas altivos, um de nossos leitores comentou que o biologista inglês Richard Dawkins teria ‘adimitido’ (seja lá o que for que isso significa!) aquilo que se convenciona chamar de ‘teoria do design inteligente’.
Como o Dawkins escreve muito bem (recomendo fortemente seus livros!), vale a pena reproduzir este parágrafo de um artigo no The Guardian em 2005:
Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?
Cheque mate
Como o Dawkins escreve muito bem (recomendo fortemente seus livros!), vale a pena reproduzir este parágrafo de um artigo no The Guardian em 2005:
Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?
Cheque mate
