Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse on the Cross Rhythms website.

Name
Email address
Article Title:	Intelligent Design Versus Evolution
Author of reported comment:	Paul Burnett
Comment Date:	15:15 on Nov 6 2010
Comment:	Noble is certainly correct about one thing: Intelligent design creationism is indeed not a theory in any scientific sense. Every actual scientific organization in America has rejected it as being religious pseudoscience. It was developed by creationists to dodge a Supreme Court ruling that its previous incarnation, "creation science," was also an attempt to get around the legal restriction of teaching the Book of Genesis in secular school biology classes. The only support for intelligent design creationism in America is in the willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate religious community - it has no support or legitimacy whatsoever in the scientific community. And indeed, Professor Michael Behe is one of the iconic figures in the world of intelligent design creationism. In a famous Federal court trial in 2005, he admitted under oath that for intelligent design creationism to be defined as "science," the definition of science would have to so dumbed down that astrology could also be defined as "science." Professor Behe has been disowned by his University's entire Biology Department for his anti-evolution stance - see http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm - which states "intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Tell us the details of your complaint:
	For verification, please type the word shown above in the box below [try a different word]