[Right Wing Professor]

And we are witnessing a great scientific revolution it in our life time.

If so, it's a silent revolution. Check out how much scientific research ID has so far stimulated..

I guess this is just one more sighting of the Imminent Demise of Evolution. Yawn!

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the link. I found your thread and deployed the ping list. Better late than never.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I went to the first link. The article was rather condensending. However it did raise an interesting issue involving the lack of ID peer review. The link below attempts to explain why this is the case.

link

The excerpt below will give you the flavor of the article.

"The current intelligent design controversy is a struggle within science between empiricism (what the evidence shows) and naturalism (the belief that no evidence that shows design can be admitted). … Surely, all the evidence must support naturalism! Unfortunately, many in science today seem incapable of a rational discussion of the problem of what happens when the evidence doesn't support it. Contrary evidence piles up, increasingly strained interpretations are invoked, the issues are politicized in order to gain time, and dissenters (real or imagined) are persecuted and suppressed."

Scientific revolutions are always resisted. As Kuhn makes clear. And they don't happen over night. The latest flap at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. over an article by Stephen Meyer is a case in point.

What makes ID so difficult to get accepted is its insistence of an intelligent agent. This is anathema to modern science. This in-spite of the obvious weakness of Darwin's theory.