Scientific Controversies Remain as Molecular Machines Can't Be Forced Out of the Cell in an Election
In the wake of US elections, which largely focused on international issues such as terrorism and the war in Iraq, there have been some who think that this somehow means that scientists should ignore evidence for intelligent design, such as the fact that digital code in DNA and molecular machines in cells exist.
Canadian science writer Denyse O'Leary (first of Post-Darwinist, now of Mindful Hack fame) commented on our tendency in the US to think that elections here set the pace for everything else in the world.
I hope no one will mind me saying this but many American intelligentsias are very, very parochial.Of course, Denyse is not wrong. No matter what happens in the polling booth, or the courtroom, the scientific controversy remains just that -- a scientific controversy.
Do they think they have a patent on the ID controversy?
Do they think everyone knows or cares who they would vote for?
Or that it makes any difference?
There is a multitude of ways of knowing that Darwinism is false.
I look out on the world, I see ferment everywhere.
I just launched my Mindful Hack site an hour ago (neuroscience implications of ID) and already nearly 50 people have visited it.
I wonder how many voted in an American election and how?