[Right Wing Professor]

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.

Meyer's paper is just a hackneyed warming over of creationist arguments. It contains no new data and no original thought. The flap was over how an apparently creationist editor abused his position to publish something that doesn't conform to the generally accepted standards for reporting of scientific results.

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.

No, the problem is that ID gives us no objective ways of determining whether an intelligent agent was involved. It reduces to 'godiddit'.

And there are no obvious weaknesses in Darwin's theory.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Meyer's paper is just a hackneyed warming over of creationist arguments. It contains no new data and no original thought. The flap was over how an apparently creationist editor abused his position to publish something that doesn't conform to the generally accepted standards for reporting of scientific results.

So you decided on the Ad Hominem. Good way to debate. Keep up the good work.