noteworthy wrote:
] Whereas earlier coverage simply tended toward comic
] uncordiality, the tone now has shifted from a mocking of
] harmless idiocy to a biting castigation of the curricular
] debasements in Cobb and Dover.

The most interesting thing to note is that the author of this article has bought into the memetic distortions of those he opposes, calling "intelligent design" "an alternative theory" in the second paragraph.

"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. The word "theory" is used in common speech when one really means hypothesis, because the later word is a bit obtuse. The author seems aware of the distinction, but doesn't seem to recall the word "hypothesis" and instead reaches for phrases like "not yet a theory."

When someone says "The Theory of Evolution" they aren't using the lay meaning of the word theory, but rather the scientific meaning. The "Intelligent Design" folks distort the debate by taking advantage of the public's confusion about the definition of these two words. In falling for it this article does more to promote their cause then to fight it.

RE: The Crafty Attacks on Evolution