Everytime A Bell Rings, An Angel Get's His Wings, And A Dog Salivates

In the current case in Harrisburg regarding Evolution vs Intelligent Design, a witness for the Dover schoolboard, Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, has been calling his credentials into question. It is bizarre to me how a person of science can turn his back on a search for truth because he is afraid of being ostracized by his church's bingo consortium... or whatever his reasons. Either way, he certainly must have shown by now that his perceptions of science are twisted.

The debate over whether evolution is true based on its classification as a theory is a tired argument. The way this foolishness was even able to find its way into the school at all shows that people of miopic view can find their way into positions of power. The Dover schoolboard's position is as such: Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and it refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information about the concept.

In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, an article titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" has a fantastic overview of evolution as a theory...

...you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

The points of Intelligent Design are not based on intelligent understanding of life at all. Could there have been a creator? Who cares? Was there a guiding hand into how life has changed and adapted? Well, unless a man comes down on a flaming pie and announces that he wants Intelligent Design taught in public schools, I prefer that we teach students based on what we can examine and make sense of. Throwing the guiding hand of a supreme being is akin to admitting that its too hard to think beyond the concept of "thunder is God bowling."