Some ideologies (such as Darwinism) wrap themselves in the mantle of science even though they lack — or are inconsistent with — the evidence.
How could blind evolution arrange biochemical parts into complex functional wholes one small step at a time, as Darwin and his followers envision?
Darwinists easily obtain a global microphone to rant against intelligent design, while ID advocates silently gain adherents. Is it a sign of desperation?
If you’re going to engage people on the topic of intelligent design publications, don’t let them force two false assumptions on you.
This finding fits Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves perfectly. It’s easier to throw cargo overboard than to create it.