It cant be said any clearer:


Anyone who is incapable of grasping this simple concept can hardly be able to grasp more complex and specific ones.

In the first place the accuracy of a theory is not dependent on its utility. In the second place, multiple practical disciplines use principals of evolutionary biology as a matter of course. Artificial selection of crops and livestock wouldn't work without basic assumptions concerning common descent. Treatment of recently evolved diseases such as HIV are dependent on research regarding its change from ancestral SIV viruses. Immune system responses are dependent on the evolutionary host parasite relationship. Evolutionary algorithms are used for problem solving in systems management. And, of course, any future benefits are dependent on the accuracy of the tested hypotheses. Ten years of tossing money down the rabbit hole of Intelligent Design has yielded nothing of benefit to anyone (except maybe a paycheck to Dembski, et.al).


People. Pretty much every PhD biologist from the major Texas universities signed this statement.


The motives of the Discovery Institute are clear as witnessed in that pesky Wedge Strategy.

The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.


                                        -----------William Dembski

Personally, I could care less whether Dembski is a Christian or a Raelian. I just think it is dishonest for the proponents of ID to demand a place at the table without doing any of the groundwork. No other unpopular ideas (endosymbiosis, relativity, plate techtonics, puncuated equilibrium, germ theory, etc) put themselves up as  political movements in advance of actually accumulating corroborating evidence.

A distiguished PHILOSOPHER?? There is such a thing?

Anyway, why is it that Scientist is the only profession where you can release data supporting your continued existence n your field and no one blinks an eye as long as it is the excepted norm?

We have many scientists, Chemists and biologists with PHD's and more published materials than you can shake a stick at and I have heard many of them talk about reverse engineering thier results. Starting at what they want to conclusions to be and figuring out from there how to get them. Its called Survival of the Grant.

Not saying this is the case here and maybe I am just cynical but how many times have you heard a scientists say "Well you know, I thought it would be this way but MAN was I wrong."

I met a distinguished professor of philosophy at UBC once. Not distinguished for his philosophy, but his weed. Real primo bud.

</sarcasm>