Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, keeps poking his nose in the Intelligent Design (ID) debate. I welcome such poking but he keeps getting soundly beaten by our dear friend PZ. Rightly so. I’ll take my own crack at Mr. Dilbert. He says:
But I have to wonder if thatâ€™s the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.
â€œKids, astronomy is science and astrology isnâ€™t. Here are some more examples of things that arenâ€™t science…â€
Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they arenâ€™t the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using “ain’t” in English class and that didn’t hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design.
I don’t think any scientists or educators are opposed to stating very clearly in class that Intelligent Design is complete and utter nonsense. I think they would happily teach that ID is not science. That is not at all what the debate is about. The debate is about whether we should teach ID as an alternative explanation of human origins. Mr. Dilbert does us all a disservice when he acts surprised that this offends us. Of course it offends us and of course we should keep that mystical crap out of science class. Nothing too confusing about this at all, except perhaps to Mr. Dilbert.