[tallhappy]

ID bothers the puerile peter pan posters like those here -- lost boys who never grew up and are still rebelling against the church ;lady who upbraided them when they were 13.

At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature.

Someone like Philip Johnston and otheres are very sharp people who know logic argument and rhetoric.

Their citicisms hit a nerve because they are right in their criticisms of the intellectual efforts going in to much evoutionary discussion.

It took these lawyers and other religious conservatives to point out the tautologies and banal ideas put forth because mainstream active biologists pay no attention to the archaic and essentially anachronistic students of evolution.

[Steve_Seattle]

"At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature."

The irony is that conventional evolutionary theory is not a "hard" science, yet its defenders treat any critique of it as "anti-science." I've gone a bit overboard in some of my comments to those people, but they strike me as insufferably smug, and that is one quality that pushes my buttons.

[RogueIsland]

At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature.

I'm certain the scientists who study Evolutionary Theory would be more than happy fo ryou to publish your "easy critisms" ot their "simplistic logic" in the relevant science journals. I look forward to reading your monographs on the subject.

[PMCarey]

ID bothers the puerile peter pan posters like those here -- lost boys who never grew up and are still rebelling against the church ;lady who upbraided them when they were 13.

Says the one who argues like a 13-year old.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature.

Speaking of sloppy and lazy science, 600 years ago, the religious leaders of the day believed that the world was flat and that the sun and stars rotated around the earth.

Galileo had scientific evidence that challenged their beliefs, yet had to hide it or else face the wrath of the religious leaders.

What's changed since then? The beliefs of the religious leaders hasn't. The very same religious tenets that supported a flat-earth 600 years ago are still in place today.

Who's being sloppy and lazy today? Not the scientists. They're challenging and testing their beliefs every day. Are the religious leaders challenging and testing their beliefs for validity?