In a mind-numbingly simplistic, recent article on Darwin by - of all people - Andrew Marr, we are subjected to a paean of praise for the 'old fraud'. He falls into every single trap and were I to spend a happy hour or two on his piece, I could literally take it apart but I shall settle for dealing with just one hubris-laden line in which he refers to: '.... today's fight between Creationists and the scientifically educated.'
What breathtaking arrogance! He makes the appalling suggestion that the issue of science versus non science is the nub of the debate.
Is he really unaware of the numbers of scientists - many with doctorates and professorships - who are opposed to evolution on scientific grounds? Or is he just being disingenuous?
