Take me out to the Frame Game!

Bases loaded...

David DeWalt is up to bat. Leebruhl media pitching.
Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. [...]

As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.
Ball one. Comparing Corvettes to tadpoles is wingnutty, but the whining tone is insufficiently manly-man.
However, there is increasing skepticism among thoughtful scientists of a central claim of neo-Darwinism, namely that complex living systems can be generated from mindless processes like random mutation and natural selection. Thus, the question that Wolf Blitzer should have asked would be along these lines: "Do you think that the topic of Darwinian evolution should be taught objectively in our public schools, with evidence for and against the theory?"
Strrrrike! Good effort on the skepticism part, but hits it way out with a long and complicated question.
But we have heard that rhetoric elsewhere. For example, Al Gore has famously said that the debate is over regarding global warming. Even assuming that human beings cause global warming, scientists vigorously debate how significant the human contribution is and how beneficial remedial measures would be. "The debate is over" really means, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." [...]

Some may have the illusion that science is devoid of politics. But whether we debate the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug, the risks of electromagnetic radiation, or the potential benefit of embryonic stem cells, financial and ideological agendas are not easily set aside. As bad as political correctness may be in the humanities and social sciences, we should be particularly alarmed by a threat to the right to dissent from the "mainstream" when it comes to scientific knowledge, often a critical component of our public policy.
It's a wingnut home run! Weaving together Al Gore, global warming, drug efficacy and embryonic stem cells, David DeWalt hits it out of the ballpark of rational discourse and directly into the cheering crowds of think-tankers and right-wing ideologues. But he doesn't stop there.
Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.
Perfect. Some may try to impose their views of a higher being onto science, but even if they're unable to test that hypothesis, should nonetheless be able to offer their data. If they're prevented from doing so, we'll condemn them for politicizing science.