Steve Peterson wrote:

See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on

That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
reading of the Genesis account.

public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.

Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
or claims.


read the sites if you need actual information to counter such assertions as
"teach the controversy."

Steven Peterson, Ph.D.
Steve #564 on the Steve's List


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/