Thursday, February 10, 2011

Intelligent Design

This doesn't have much to do with politics, but the debate over ID in bio classes was recently discussed by the mogul of neutrality and the anti-spin doctor, Bill O'Reilly.

Here's the transcript. Read and laugh. O'Reilly tries to make some good points. I'm convinced that, in his mind, he was making a lot of sense. The problem is that, somewhere between his logical brain and his mouth, the message was hijacked by his unflinching belief in "the deity" and was twisted around into an assault of common sense and generally concrete scientific fact. It's sad, but it happened.

The problem with this debate is that it is just silly, as O'Reilly's guest Michael Grant asserts. Grant agreed that ID could be discussed in school, but in a comparative religion or philosophy class, a fairly reasonable opinion. It makes sense to me. But apparently not to O'Reilly, who couldn't seem to grasp what Grant was trying to say. He continually tried to push that ID should be taught in a bio science class because it dealt with similar topics. This is a lot like saying that we should be learning about George Washington and Charles Manson in the same class because they both had big ideas.

In the end, there doesn't seem be any progress made. O'Reilly tucks the crazy religious-freak mentality neatly into his pocket, thanks Grant, and cuts to commercial. It's hard to tell who even "won" the discussion. In this debate, it's clear that there are no winners, only a lot of very irritated people convinced of their own correctness.

1 comment:

Fred Wickham said...

Great post. Nice simile: "like saying that we should be learning about George Washington and Charles Manson in the same class because they both had big ideas."