Behe concludes here, “Courts are not good places to discuss ideas.” Yet ID critics continue to cite the Dover case as scientific gospel.
Weighing the validity of ID, not by distorting its conclusions or imputing false intentions to it, is what evolutionary biology has largely refused to do.
Darwinists easily obtain a global microphone to rant against intelligent design, while ID advocates silently gain adherents. Is it a sign of desperation?
A Christianity Today obituary contains some misstatements about the law and legislative history regarding evolution education.
I want to underscore Phil’s pivotal role in organizing disparate voices critical of Darwinism and convinced of design in nature into a cohesive community.