Biases and Scariness in "God or Gorilla"

The Harper’s article "God or Gorilla" by Matthew Chapman was an interesting article that focused on the two sides of a specific trial regarding the evolution versus intelligent design debate. The article was indeed biased in favor of the sides of the evolutionists, but I do not think that it hindered the article the way that bias tends to hinder articles. Right away, the reader learns that Chapman is a descendant of Charles Darwin, so the reader knows that the author is going to take the side of the evolutionists. Furthermore, even though the language and tone of the article make it seem like Chapman is bashing the intelligent design people, he provides enough evidence to justify his biased position. Chapman also makes it clear that he holds no disregard for the people themselves if they are good honest people that just happen to side with the intelligent design theory.

The scariest part of this article to me was the lengths that some people would go to get intelligent design taught in the school. As Chapman said, “an auto repairman appointed an OxyContin-addicted biblical literalists without a shred of knowledge to decide which books the kids should learn from, and a woman who had no curiosity about anything, even her own most deeply held beliefs, seconded the whole idea.” These people had no scientific reason to want intelligent design taught. They couldn’t even answer the questions that they themselves brought up, such as “what were the gaps left in evolutionary theory?” It ‘s a very scary thought to me that people who do not believe in small details like facts, research, and evidence are the ones in charge with teaching children.