> he argues that the article in National Geographic does a disservice to its readers for its shallow and overly polemical content.
Tell me: If the National Geographic ran an article on Newtonian physics, in which it brushed aside the arguements of those pushing antigravity and inertialess drives while at the same time brushing aside the problems with Newtonian physics (such as reletivistic issues); whoudl you still consider the article to be a poor one?
At some point, that which is clearly silly (ID) can be reasonably brushed aside in favor of that which is clearly reasonable.
But a corallary to your statement is (in effect) there is no such thing as a bad article in support of evolutionary theory.
An example for you (assuming you are sane, intelligent, and willing to allow reason to take its course).
Suppose I write an article opposing the flat earth theory. Let us assume my evidence in support of round earth is that a ship my leave port, disappear over the horizon, then subsequently return safely. Let us assume I conclude my article by saying the evidence is overwhelming against the flat earth theory.
If I were to do such a thing, the article would be a poor one, despite espousing a superior scientific position.
So. Are you able to admit that there is such a thing as a bad pro-evolution article?
The problem is, that ID is not "clearly silly." In fact, it is a quite reasonable theory.
Consider: we humans have been engaged in Intelligent Design for thousands of years. What else would you call the results of selective breeding and, more recently, direct genetic manipulation, if not Intelligent Design?
As humans gain increasing facility in genetic
What seems to me "silly" is your willingness to cast aside real, hard evidence to the effect that ID is at least a viable theory: human experience provides abundant evidence of its efficacy.
Are you really being reasonable here, or are you being "scientific" only in the ideological sense of the term?