Susanna, also noted that the fever to debunk intelligent design was so widespread amongst evolutionists that one of them had even attempted to debunk a satirical piece by Scott Orr. (Debunking satire!? Ye Gods! Is nothing sacred?)
Yesterday, Susanna found she'd been labelled an apologist for intelligent design and her post well and truly debunked. Predictably enough, by the same blogger she'd cited for debunking Scrappleface - Orac at Respectful Insolence.
And what a debunking! Like Susanna says:
He has me for breakfast, lunch, dinner and a couple of snacks too, but still manages to leave a little for a few friends to gnaw on.Snark aside, Orac's post is an excellent rehearsal of the arguments against intelligent design - but there's an awful lot of snark to wade through before you get to the good bits.
However, his conclusion is starkly concise: (they're his italics)
The bottom line is that ID has utterly failed to gain a foothold in biology as serious science the way that every accepted scientific theory ultimately becomes accepted: through the preponderance of evidence and through the theory's ability to unify, explain, and to some extent predict natural phenomenon.To my mind, unless and until that happens, intelligent design should have no role in informing science standards in our schools.
[...]
If ID advocates really want to get their concepts introduced into the classroom as science, then the best way to do it is to divert some of that massive money and effort used to bulldoze various initiatives forcing the teaching of ID as "science" in high schools and use it to produce the goods. Do the research. Show scientists the evidence. Publish the research and evidence in peer-reviewed journals. Present it at national meetings of biologists. Show how ID explains the diversity of life better than (or at least as well as) evolutionary theory does.
In the meantime, those with a taste for satire might enjoy Language Log's take on it all.
