Evolution, the Foundation For Our Economy?

This opinion piece from The Denver Post is hardly worth mentioning, except for its service as a recitation of some common arguments for evolution-in particular, that teaching evolution is the foundation for our economy. Essentially, the article argues that

1) Teaching evolution is an essential component of a rigorous scientific education and a shining example of the power and objectivity of the scientific method.

2) To weaken the teaching of evolution is to erode the teaching of science itself.

∴ Science is the fuel that drives the innovation that feeds our economy, and if we do not act soon to strengthen science education in the United States, our nation will lose our competitive edge in science, medicine and technology.

Answers in Genesis doesn't oppose the teaching of evolution, but only opposes the fact that teachers are not free to give “the rest of the story” on evolution.

Of course, Answers in Genesis doesn't oppose the teaching of evolution, but only opposes the fact that teachers are not free to give “the rest of the story” on evolution.

The author also throws out other old canards, such as that evolution is not a belief/philosophy/opinion and rather “the name given to a natural process that was discovered by man” (sounds as though the author is confusing conjectured evolution with observable natural selection), and that “there is no inherent conflict” between evolution and religion (with the author trying to justify that view by explaining that “[e]volution does not deny or confirm the existence of God” and that “[m]any religious people fully accept evolution).”

But the piece trips over itself nearer the end, when it explains

because intelligent design proposes a supernatural explanation, an idea that is not testable and most probably not observable, it violates two fundamental requirements of the scientific method. If we teach intelligent design as a scientifically acceptable alternative to evolution, we undermine the very essence of the scientific method.

In other words, anything supernatural is by definition unscientific, according to the author! (Perhaps the author believes teachers shouldn't teach molecules-to-man evolution in science classes either, since any origins “science” is unscientific and, hence, cannot be a “shining example of the power and objectivity of the scientific method”!)