There has been a lot of public debate about evolution in recent years, but that public debate has masked one important fact: there is no scientific debate about the status of evolution. Scientists no more debate evolutionary theory than they do plate tectonics. Why, then, do so many Christians pretend otherwise and what should be done about them?

PZ Myers argues that we shouldn't give anti-scientific positions any consideration:

I know what some people are thinking: just don't call them "stupid" or a "moron", it distracts from the scientific argument. Of course it does; but one thing I've learned over the years is that this is not a scientific debate. The scientific part was settled a century ago, and evolution won, hands down. There is absolutely no legitimate, intelligent argument against evolutionary theory right now. This is not to say that we know everything or that the theory is complete or that we expect no major revisions; it means that evolution in a broad sense is an inarguable fact, and what we need to know now are details and mechanisms. The earth is billions of years old, species are all related to one another, and there has been a complex and ongoing pattern of change over the course of all of that time. All of that has been supported by multiple interlocking lines of evidence uncovered by the work of thousands of people, rechecked and verified by thousands more. That's just not going to be seriously challenged by anyone sensible, let alone some ranting guy who took a general science course in high school.

So what's the argument about? Not science, that's for sure. The opponents of evolution don't know any. They are effective political agents who are attacking the enterprise of science without addressing the scientific issues seriously. They have been relying on their opponent's hesitation or aloofness to escape criticism of their competence or ignorance. They shout with authority when they possess none.

You know what? It's time to stop that.

It's hard to argue against this. We wouldn't politely pretend that there was a legitimate debate to be had over whether the earth is round or the sun is the center of the solar system. Why, then, do we do it with evolution and creationism? Why do people pretend that the creationist position, including in the guise of "Intelligent" Design, is anything other than total nonsense?

As I noted above, there is no scientific debate about the status of evolution. There are, however policy debates — debates about, for example, about whether it will be "policy" to teach about evolution in public schools. Think about that for a moment: people are having serious policy debates about wether to teach factual science. It's like debating whether to teach that humans are formed by the union of a sperm and egg because that contradicts ancient religious doctrines about human development. Would that make any sense? Would that be justified?

No — and neither are similar policy debates about teaching evolution.

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion <
• What is Creationism?
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Balanced Treatment?
• What is Science?