hell’s handmaiden

Poor saps– in this case John West and Robert Crowther– can’t even frame the debate accurately.

Darwinists are quick to claim that science isn’t democratic and because Darwinism is the dominant theory supported by a majority of scientists students should learn only the evidence that supports it.

Intelligent Design the Future: Should the “Consensus View of Science” Always Prevail?

True, evolution is supported by the majority of scientists trained in and working in the relevant fields, but that isn’t the why it should be taught and ID shouldn’t. Evolution should be taught because:

The last sentence has some truth to it, generally speaking. The first sentence is insane.

Reverse engineering in biology is an inference to design, even if the inference is implicit and not explicit, and even if the scientist using the reverse engineering methodology doesn’t agree with the philosophical implications of the design inference. Much of modern molecular biology is the reverse engineering of biological molecules.

Evolution News & Views: Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist Makes Wikipedia Reference ‘Disappear’

Res Ipsa Loquitur has an interesting account of an exchange between a student, the author of the post cited, and a law professor wishing to argue Intelligent Design.

Overall, the professor’s position reminds me of an ‘argument’ an ex-girlfriend used to make– “Just look at that sunset! How can you not believe in God?”

Hat-tip to EvolvingThoughts.

Popularity: 1%

Yet again, when the science doesn’t work convince people with pretty pictures.

Sjogren… now works as an artist with Metamorphosis Studios, and contributes to IDarts.org, both of which feature her highly-regarded art connecting biological avian flight with human-designed flight-machines.

Artist Shows Connections Between Nature and Human Design

The– it hurts me to say it– think tanks must have had a meeting and designated this the theme of the new and improved ID marketing campaign. But why?

Well, big surprise… but I’m happy you’ve noticed.

We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

Stance is misconstrued on ‘intelligent design’

Who is “we”? The John Templeton Foundation. The above quote from the LA Times is actually a near quote from the Foundation’s “About” page, which I’ll quote because it the points deserve reiteration.