Time for civil debate

The erudite Casey Luskin, Head of Logic at the Discovery Institute, makes the case in the Washington Examiner for the Darwin-worshippers to restore civility to the debate in the intelligent design controversy.

In today’s highly charged political climate, scientific debates over controversial subjects such as climate change and evolution increasingly substitute such overblown rhetoric for careful analysis.

We commonly see one side depicting the other as not only wrong, but as unreasonable, irrational, or immoral. As a result, two terms are presently in vogue to describe those who question scientific ideas: “Skeptic” and “Denier.”

In place of rhetorically charged labels like denier, I suggest using more civil terms like “critic” or “skeptic,” even when describing one's opponents. ID proponents are critics of Darwinian evolution.

[...]

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s skepticism is most convincing in this intriguing debate.

Quite right. Just because their heads are filled with a Nazi-inspiring dogma which causes school shootings and allows them to euthanise seniors and abort babies and behave as they like without moral consequence doesn't give the Darwin-worshipping herd any right to remove civility from an important public debate at the razor's edge of scientific discovery.

Discover why there really is a controvery about Intelligent Design!