[Liberal Classic]

This article is awful. It demonstrates to me everything that is wrong about the Intelligent Design/Creationism movement. ID isn't a scientific theory, it is a religious/political movement. ID is not about "teaching the controversy," it is about supplanting the prevailing scientific theory through political means. It's not about science education, but about winning. Ultimately, it is always couched in the context of the eternal battle for men's souls, and calls religious people to take a stand against the forces of atheism. Nevermind that the field science, including evolutionary science, is by definition religiously neutral and comprised by people of all creeds and faiths.

Note this sentence from the end:

The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.

This statement has the stench of a historical dialectic.

No, science is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship. Science is a meritocracy. ID seeks to use the force of political authority to give it the standing that the scientific process has refused to award it.

[From many - one.]

I'm glad you highlighted the Darwinism...exit paragraph.

There are too many folk who seem to accept that this is just an attempt to add a few sentences to a general biology class.

It is an attempt to replace science with theology.


Upthread there was a post pointing out that, of all the reasons listed for id "winning", none was that it's scientifically correct!

I'll go find it and post a ref

[From many - one.]

It was post 64 by Kjobs.