AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
While many, including me, may be partial to the points made in "For Devolution" (The Week, August 29), I cannot accept the halfhearted neutrality into which the editorial eventually falls. NR should have explicitly stated opposition to teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
The ultimate implications of biological mutation are, as stated, theological or philosophical in nature; such subjects cannot be considered science, and should therefore not be taught as such. A gut feeling that God created the unvarying laws of nature is fine, but has no ...
Source: HighBeam Research, Not so intelligent.(letters to the editor)(Letter to the Editor)