First, Dean mistakenly refers to intelligent design as the ?ideological cousin of creationism.? It is not.
No indeed. It is exactly the same thing. The rest of what Crowther writes is so astoundingly wrong that I’ll just let his words speak for themselves.
As for whether or not evolution is the foundation for modern biology, like Dean I will turn to the National Academy of Science–specifically to Dr. Phillip Skell of the NAS, who has written on this subject extensively. [Skell's unsourced claims that scientists don't use evolution omitted]?
I think I?ll side with the scientist over the science writer on this one.?
Referring to the National Academy?s official stand against ID, Dean writes?
Wait. Stop. The National Academies of Science have an official stand against ID? So why are we accepting one NAS member’s opinion over the studied assessment of the entire scientific body? Especially if the body itself is so credible?
It isn’t that I don’t know the answer, I just wish the IDolators would fess up.