One side can be wrong - The Diigo Meta page

• 27 Dec 10
  

  articles evolution science politics Biology society for:mabrahams

• 19 Sep 08
  

  Kat Kreugar

  bookmarks biology education evolution philosophy religion science politics

• 06 Jun 06
  

  Anne Zarinnia

  science evolution religion politics Biology deli oct 2011

• 16 Jan 06
  

  Jarrod Trainque

  science evolution religion politics Biology

• 10 Jan 06
  

  Jim McGuire

  intelligent design evolution

• 04 Jan 06
  

  Casey Martin

  Un-Intelligent

• 29 Dec 05
  

  ihuston

  education news politics religion science toread evolution

• 05 Nov 05
  

  Michael Myers

  Dawkins gives the smackdown on Intelligent Design and the notion of "teaching both sides" in the classroom
  

  evolution logic politics religion science

• 31 Oct 05
  

  anand_mani

  Richard Dawkins and Jerry stomp nicely on ID

  Design Stuff

  • One side can be wrong   Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne   Thursday September 1, 2005The Guardian     It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.
• 30 Sep 05
  

  giorgosn N
• 12 Sep 05
  

  donotwant

  toread science

• 10 Sep 05
  

  aj

  Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

  biology evolution politics religion society usa

• 

  D0g Byte

  ID evolution darwin dawkins intelligentdesign

• 09 Sep 05
  

  M .

  articles science for:lezardus imported

• 08 Sep 05
  

  rsearjeant

  RichardDawkins Evolution

• 07 Sep 05
  

  Tama Leaver

  "Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne."

  intelligentdesign education politics

• 06 Sep 05
  

  Ian Leckie

  You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the churc

  science evolution religion politics intelligentdesign

• 

  memoriaTechnica

  Science

  • Intelligent design is not ... a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class.
• 05 Sep 05
  

  S Jones

  creationism dawkins evolution religion science debate _delicious

• 02 Sep 05
  

  Andy Jackson

  science politics

• 01 Sep 05
  

  asrobertson

  Dawkins et al. on 'Intelligent Design'

  politics religion evolution science

• 

  ukantic

  Intelligent Design creationism British Press TTC CT OAT etc Dawkins The dangers of

  • Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.