================
Excerpt from Current biology
Volume 16, Issue 16, 22 August 2006, Pages R619-R620
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.041
Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Q & A: Roger Hendrix
Pittsburgh Bacteriophage Institute and Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
Available online 21 August 2006.
=================
….
Q: Given the prominence of the evolutionary perspective in your work, can
you comment on the current efforts to present ‘Intelligent Design’ as an
alternative to biological evolution in public schools in America?A: It is a sorry commentary on the state of public understanding of
science that a large fraction of the US population is willing to accept
that Intelligent Design (ID), essentially a tarted-up version of
creationism, and evolution are in some sense parallel or comparable. The
ID argument, as near as I can tell is “These biological organisms are so
complex that I cannot imagine how they got to be like they are. If I
cannot understand that, nobody can understand it. Better call in Godâ€Â. To
think that ID in any way provides evidence against biological evolution
shows a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the nature of
scientific evidence and scientific argument. At the risk of sounding
cynical, though, I would venture that most of the people pushing ID do not
give a rat’s patootie about having a scientific discussion over evolution
or considering what the data might tell us; they’re simply looking for a
way to insert their own peculiar religious beliefs into public education.
….
==================