This kind of stuff just cracks me up.
The "Intelligent Design" folks have been loudly proclaiming for years now that they're not "really" creationists, and they're not "really" trying to get religion into schools, they're just an "alternate scientific hypothesis", and the (unnamed, unspecified) "designer(s)" might well be space aliens or who-knows-what.
...but look at an "IDer" the wrong way, or reject an "ID" paper as poor science, or give a hard time to someone who lets a shoddy "ID" article get published, and suddenly they all yell, "RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!"
Gosh, guys, I thought ID wasn't *about* religion...
Perhaps you missed this in the article:
"One disturbing element in the affair concerns Sternberg's allegations that his supervisor, Zoology Department chairman Jonathan Coddington, called around the museum to check out Sternberg's religious and political affiliations. "
Who made it about religion?
Like evolution isn't about a theory. Pot calling the kettle black.
The can run, but they can not hide. LOL
The problem is that Darwin's theories ARE a religion.
"an ID paper as poor science"......gimme a break here! The science with regards evolution is equally rotten!!!!
Problem is, someone forgot to send the memo to the 'father of ID'
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
Both quotes from Philip Johnson, author of 'Darwin on Trial'