Washtimes enters the fray

Desparately trying to make a coherent point (kinda like my last post), the Washington Times discusses evolution in today's op-ed page.

"On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial lawyer"

ooooh, ouch, we just had an election about triaahhhl lawyuhs and we's don'ts likes 'em much 'round hee! Ridiculing the idea that scientists have better things to do with their days than participate in this charade, the Wash goes on:

"Nearly 400 scientists have signed a statement of dissent from Darwin's theory."

Well blow me down! As Popeye would say "I ain't no physicist but I knows what matters" and 400 scientists is staggering, absolutely staggering. Now, if only the Nation's red-state Newspaper would start counting the number of scientists that signed a statement agreeing with the findings on the anthropogenic origins of global warming...but I digress.

"Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to the huge amount of new species that arose from the [cambrian] explosion. Their failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized."

Scientists, always failing at what they should be doing.

"Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion requires a little imagination"

Of course, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all evolved after the Cambrian Explosion. A minor finding, really, compared to the awesome imagination of Op-Ed writers in the Wabbldydoodah Times (imagine: WMD in Iraq!). No, the answer lies in:

"Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations play in evolution."

Sounds like a great thing to teach our kids who day by day know less and less about science. Finally, we quote the quotes of the Moonie Times:

"The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method."

By none other than:

"No, I don't mind being a writer of obscure books at all."