Funny species, those Intelligent Design proponents (aka IDiots) are. They keep repeating the same vacuous arguments (well, not even arguments really, more like delusions) until they manage to convince themselves. And perhaps some other non-thinking fellow x-ians of theirs.

Take for example Casey Luskin, prominent supporter of the non-theory of Intelligent Design, contributing at the non-blog (since comments are disabled, no discussion allowed) of Evolution News and Views. Citing the famous Epperson v. Arkansas court case of 1968, where the judge overturned a ridiculous Arkansas 1928 law that banned the teaching of evolution (!), Luskin produces this award-winning quote:

Finally, the Epperson majority explained that “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.” While such language is undoubtedly partial towards lawsuits against religiously motivated policies that oppose the teaching of evolution, one can also imagine this language being quoted in a brief opposing an atheist plaintiff alleging that teaching scientific critique of evolution, or the teaching of alternatives to evolution such as intelligent design, established theistic religion. Would courts accept such an argument?

Of course they would not accept such non-argument. Scientific critique of evolution?!? There are certainly numerous topics in evolutionary theory that need further research, refinement, explanation. But this is not “critique” of the theory, these are open issues. Luskin (and other IDiots) seems to imply that somehow, somewhere in the scientific community, there is disagreement about the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Clearly, this is not the case, and upon the production of evidence that contradict the main tenets of evolution, the theory would be thrown out the window immediately. But evolutionary theory has stood the test of time and observation triumphantly!

As opposed to ID of course. For the millionth time Mr. Luskin: Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. This is now well established from:

• the historical origins of the movement directly from creationism (literally a global replace of the word “creationism” with the term “intelligent design”),
  
  
• its purpose: “ID [...] is a scientific research program [... that] seeks evidence of design in nature” -so they already know the conclusion, they are just looking for evidence that fit it now. The complete opposite of science…
  
  
• the empty search results when you look for scientific literature for intelligent design…
  
  
• the lack of testable hypotheses and the non-falsifiability (kind of like string theory sorry, digressing…)

So Luskin wants to grant ID the same status, credibility, and validity as evolutionary theory, based on… what exactly???