" It does not represent "fairness" or "balance" to teach a doctrine which has failed to earn standing in professional scholarship as on a par with one that has. "
When you run the educational establishments, your will is law. How favorable do you suppose die-hard leftists that inhabit the NEA, and virtually all organs of the state-educational apparatus are, towards anything remotely resembling intelligent design? They are victims of their prejudices, and they are blinded by the zeitgeist of dialectical materialism. Of course they wouldn't permit anything to be published that counteracts their views! And if you really, honestly, believe that science journal editors pursue truth disinterestedly, then I have oceanfront property for you...
When you run the educational establishments, your will is law. How favorable do you suppose die-hard leftists that inhabit the NEA, and virtually all organs of the state-educational apparatus are, towards anything remotely resembling intelligent design? They are victims of their prejudices, and they are blinded by the zeitgeist of dialectical materialism.How come evolution had won over nearly all scientists by 1910? Was the education establishment Marxist here, in England, in Germany, Japan, etc.? Hardly.
When molecular biology was developed in the last century, it *confirmed* what biologists had already concluded about the relationships between various animals and plants. See Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics especially the chart in section 4.7.
From this we can make a falsifiable prediction: any mutation (or pseudogene, fossilized virus, whatever) that is found in the dna of both cows and whales will also be found in hippos. AFAIK, this prediction is true - it has never been contradicted.
Until creationism or id can make and pass predictions at this level of detail, they won't be considered a viable replacement for standard biology.