There are no ID theorists out there who are legitimate scientists. The press in this country is a joke. ID is religion pure and simple. It is supernatural explanation--something that is not science. Its a way to try and teach religion in the classroom. Of course Deepak Chopra is big on it, so I guess if you consider him a scientist go for it. However, I think that most ID proponents are not big on Hinduisim.

Attention: This thread will be limited to 100 comments, so get your best arguments in under that limit.

Also, Cub fans cannot be explained by Intelligent Design.

Sally wrote "...let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't."

Yes it is. Creationists, realizing their cause had only tenuous scientific legitimacy, revamped and regrouped to propose Intelligent Design. They thought that couching their theory in this way would somehow convey a more scientific foundation. Phui!

It's an attempt to confuse people. And there's no there there. The more I read about or hear from ID people, the more convincing evolution becomes.

I can't make heads or tails out of Jenkins' piece. Her writing seems disjointed. And I agree wholeheartedly with Scott Barnard. The simple truth is that ID proponents have offered nothing to the marketplace of ideas. Their argument is as follows: Biology can't explain everything; therefore, ID is true. That's absurd. They have offered no experiments to challenge the theory of natural selection. None. They simply misrepresent a mainstream biolgist's work, and if the biologist takes the bait and defends himself, they say, "See! We have a conflict here! Therefore, you should teach our theory in public schools!"

There's a good reason why they haven't presented their own theory--because that theory is creationism, which is a tough one to support, seeing as all of the evidence, literally mountains of it, seems to point the other way. All they have left is a lame attempt to sow doubt.

What's amazing to me is that we're still debating this topic, more than seventy years after the Scopes trial. The movement to elevate creationism to a scientific theory is nothing more than a hoax, and the mainstream media have been hooked. What the hell is Sally Jenkins thinking, let alone the Washington Post to print such tripe? Only unlike the creators of other hoaxes, the proponents of ID have done nothing to support their claim. At least the Big Foot frauds took the trouble to film a big guy walking around in an ape suit. But the ID camp have done nothing to support their claim except create a hoax that a controversy exists in the scientific community.

The part that strikes me is how tenuous the faith of these people must be. Why can't they be satisfied that the religious world and the natural world are separate entities and never the twain shall meet? Why must they ignore all reason and evidence? If they were true believers, then they would simply accept mainstream biology and be content that natural selection does not address the existence of the soul, morality, and the other deep questions that theology addresses.