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!

Ida sinks, Darwinists unapologetic

Remember all the noise generated by the Darwinianist propaganda engine back in the spring when the press unskeptically parroted the claims about Ida, supposedly The Fossil Which Proved Evolution?

Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil

and

Missing link fossil on display

Well now the backpedalling has started and it turns out that the Fossil Which Proved Evolution turned out - quelle surprise (we Canadians have by law to be able to write in French) - to be just another dead monkey after all.

''The suggestion that Ida [was]... specifically related to the higher primates, namely monkeys apes and humans, was actually a minority view from the start. So it came as a surprise to many of us who are studying primate palaeontology," said Dr Seiffert, from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

Yes, right, it was a minority view right from the start. Which is why we heard so many of supposedly common doubts back when Ida was being hailed as the most important fossil of all time. Piltdown Man, anyone?
As Casey Luskin, the principle bone expert at the Discovery Institute in Seattle observes:

It only took a few months for Ida to go from celebrity-status “missing link” to just another extinct lower primate. As Nature is now reporting...

"Ida is as far away from the human lineage as you can get and still be considered a primate," says Christopher Beard, a palaeoanthropologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Incredibly, professional Darwinists are even trying to frantically retrofit Ida's demotion into their worldview as yet another triumph for materialistic atheism:

Isn't Science wonderful? Unlike some other ways of knowing, science can self-correct.

Oh yes such humble and gracious apologies. Self correcting after getting it massively wrong. After making it legitimate for people to keep dangerous chimps as pets, how much more damage will this Darwinian delusion do before the elite come to their senses?

Find out why there's an Origins controversy!

Meyer and Wells educate Oklahoma

Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells took the fight to the enemy recently, giving an extended lecture on intelligent design at Oklahoma University. The darwinbots came along and shouted a bit were unable to counter any of the good gents' arguments. Darwinoids often talk about how allegedly "common" genes supposedly prove that puddles turned into people, but Professor Wells points out something they don't want to hear:

Furthermore, the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?

The darwinianists still haven't given an answer to this question which is surely like a festering wound eating away at materialistic biology's Creation Myth. The best they've managed is over at the highly offensive Pandas Thumb darwin echo-chamber where someone dismisses it out of hand as the "Egregiously stupid remark of the week" without explanation. Once again we see darwinists sink to ad hominen when they run out of logic.