''Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack.
Creationist arguments are notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science and evidence.
Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.''
Notice the caricature "creationist". The use of caricatures is a give away that the proponent of the term doubts he can win on the merits. (If an atheist intellectual has doubts about Neo-Darwinism surely he is not a creationist, but I digress). Hundreds of studies do not verify that evolution can create life form inorganic matter or that it can create whole new body plans from pre-existing ones. They prove the opposite. Indeed, life itself and new body plans are the product of coded genetic information and Neo-Darwinism cannot account for either the inception of that information or its increase. It is true the neo-Darwinian establishment (liberal judges) have ruled that teaching the controversy is unconstitutional, but that utterly begs the question. Their decisions are poorly decided and evince a poor grasp of science. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was understood by its Framers to prohibit discrimination against homosexual marriage. This is nonsense too. Get the point? Arguments against evolution are not "notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of science". Intellectuals with the highest academic pedigrees (David Galernter, David Berlinski, Stephen Meyers, Phillip Johnson, James Tour, George Gilder and many, many others with the highest of IQs and credentials do not "misunderstand" evolution. Its more likely they understand if exceptionally well and hence come by their doubts honestly. The very question-begging, misrepresenting and caricature indulging nature of DBT's post suggest a lack of confidence in his own position, otherwise, he'd employ better arguments.
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design?
National Academy of Sciences ''Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.''
