Replies

Evolution offers some elegant and powerfully compelling explanations for how life has developed on this planet. But it fails miserably in explaining how life got jumpstarted in the limited time available to it. And some of its key tenets, such as Darwin's and Dawkin's contention that there must be a seamless web comprising a nearly infinite number of transitional species leading to the present species, is simply not supported by the evidence.

Darwinists take the problems of origin and lack of evidence of transitional species on faith buttressed by a few miserable conjectures. They wince and retreat from the bright harsh light offered by other disciplines, such as mathematics/combinatorics, that show how outrageously implausible their faith claims are.

Darwinists deceitfully malcharacterize Intelligent Design theory as superstition and metaphysics when in fact it is fully rational (arguing solutions by best inference) and based wholly and solidly in natural phenomena (information, Shannon entropy, and artifacts of intelligence and design).

Darwinists are in a panic because their miserable and shabby faith claims are being challenged by strong and original thinkers who are asking why evolution, if it is science, needs to be propped up and defended by the state from criticism.

Judge Jones of Kitzmiller infame, a lightweight, embarrasingly unoriginal and petty little thug of a thinker, thought he could defeat the honest critics of intellectually bankrupt Darwinism by judicial fiat. But how did a theory of science come to require the protection of the ACLU and the state?

Judge Jones and the intellectually slothful high priests of Darwinism would do well to remember Thomas Jefferson's admonition: “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

"But it fails miserably in explaining how life got jumpstarted in the limited time available to it. "

As it doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life, your criticism is moot.

"Darwinists take the problems of origin and lack of evidence of transitional species on faith buttressed by a few miserable conjectures."

There is abundant evidence for transitional species.

"Darwinists deceitfully malcharacterize Intelligent Design theory as superstition and metaphysics when in fact it is fully rational (arguing solutions by best inference) and based wholly and solidly in natural phenomena (information, Shannon entropy, and artifacts of intelligence and design)."

ID is a sham to sell books.

"Judge Jones of Kitzmiller infame, a lightweight, embarrasingly unoriginal and petty little thug of a thinker, thought he could defeat the honest critics of intellectually bankrupt Darwinism by judicial fiat. But how did a theory of science come to require the protection of the ACLU and the state?"

It doesn't have the protection of the state. It is ID that was trying to get the protection from the State, as it had failed miserably in the marketplace of ideas. It wants to be science without doing what science demands, provide a testable hypothesis.