In yesterday’s Independent, barrister Andrew Zak Williams discusses the latest obstacles Brits face in getting evolution taught in the classroom. These include not only the rise of faith-based schools but the government’s seeming reluctance to allow evolution to be taught at the primary level.
There are also some LOLzy and defensive quotes from intelligent-design creationist Michael Behe:
Dr Michael Behe is the biologist whose theory of Irreducible Complexity forms the supposed scientific basis of ID. I asked him about the consensus in many quarters that it is not scientific. While genially admitting that I had “hit a nerve”, he defended its credentials as a science. “Science is just using physical evidence and reasoning to come to a conclusion about nature,” he says. “The definition of science is supposed to help us investigate nature and if it of itself becomes a barrier, it won’t serve a useful purpose.”
Not many of us reject ID simply because the “definition of science” says that we can’t investigate the supernatural. We reject ID because it’s a superfluous hypothesis with not a shred of evidence in its favor.
Dr Behe believes that although the scientific community is presently allergic to ID, this will change after a generation or two. “As scientists retire,” he says, “the ones who are very antagonistic to ID will be replaced by those other scientists who have grown up hearing and wondering about it. And so I think that the atmosphere will change.”
If there were a heaven, and we could collect on postmortem bets there, I’d bet Behe a substantial sum that the atmosphere won’t change. (This presumes, of course, that Behe and I would wind up in the same place. He might go to Hell for lying . . .)