Between Intelligent Design and Evolution, "There is no scientific conflict," in the words of Paul Gross in The New York Sun. To put it another way, there is no scientific conflict, because Intelligent Design (ID) is just a rhetorical game, a dangerously deceitful one, and evolution long ago achieved the status of scientific theory. Gross:
ID is not a theory in the ordinary sense of science, and it is certainly not a reputable "alternate view" of the planet's life. It has no unique content other than its claim for the existence of a designer. It is not worthy of the time it would take away from real science in the schools, where the time is already far too short. It is in fact the denial of theory, supported only by unsupported claims of flaws in Darwinism. No positive scientific evidence has ever been offered for ID.
(And here's something to chew on: Gross highlights a paradox offered by psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, that an "evolving consciousness among higher animals must have produced the insistent denial in us - conscious animals - that consciousness has evolved." Say that three times real fast.)
-IseFire
