[Moonman62]

Let me guess. The NYTimes published this to make the anti-evolutionists look bad.

[bobdsmith]

the various inaccuracies such as They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it leads me to believe the nytimes published this to make the nytimes look bad.

[Ichneumon]

Let me guess. The NYTimes published this to make the anti-evolutionists look bad.

It doesn't take the NYTimes to do that.

[thejokker]

science is more then a plausible concept (intelligent design).

doesn't intelligent design assume a creator as it's central premise? science is about supporting or disproving a central premise and since god or an intelligent designer cannot be proven then one needs only reject the unsupported premise to discredit the argument. one can present evidence to support or discredit evolution; it can be "argued" therefore the scientific method can be applied to it. god or an intelligent designer requires faith and cannot be argued in a scientific manner therefore it is religious and not science.

"religious" people need to leave "scientific" people alone and learn to co-exist...