Intelligent Intelligent Design Op/Ed

Blogger Gary Bourque at Both Worlds got a bit excited about an op/ed slamming Intelligent Design in his local paper, so he wrote a rebuttal which ... surprised? ... was never published.

So he published it on Both Worlds, and it's worth reading, from its whimsical lead ...

A blogger friend of mine once wrote that intelligent design opponents see intelligent design advocates the way Elmer Fudd sees Bugs Bunny, as wascally wabbits trying to pull one over on the west of us.

... to its provocative close:

Bookman [who wrote the anti-ID piece] would suppress teaching that evidence on the thin ground that it happens to benefit the faith of its advocates, which is another way of saying the best science is science that pleases only atheists.

Bookman has one valid point--lying to promote truth is counterproductive. But focusing on irrelevancies in order to avoid a more important point is a form of lying.

So which is worse, advocating the teaching of a scientific fact which happens to benefit a particular faith, or suppressing that fact because of, well, whatever motives evolutionists have, which nobody ever bothers to question?

h/t Paragraph Farmer