Idiocy evolved

President Bush, touched upon a "intelligent design" this week, a subject dicussed previously in this blog. I'm not suggesting that the Bush administration takes a lead from this blog, or that it sets the agenda, that is for other people to say.

The president has suggested that the theory of "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

I.D. proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand. There is an important distinction between the way the Commander in Chimp and any scientist who uses the word theory. Cheerleaders for creationism and their slightly more *ahem* evolved friends pushing I.D. point to the damning evidence that scientists admit Evolution is 'just a theory', like I.D. and they should get equal time.

In science theories lead to hypotheses, testable by empirical fact and analysis, the results must be repeatable and are held up to an incredibly high standard of peer review. Even then no scientist is arrogant enough to pronounce it 100% solved FACT, it remains a strong theory, like gravity or quantumn mechanics. The scientific mentality is to question assumptions and remain open to new evidence; it does not imply that there is any competing theory that is considered viable by the scientific community.

Alan Leshner, the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says that the proponents of intelligent design are "trying to cloak a religious concept in the mantle of science". "There is no science to intelligent design, it's not even a scientifically answerable question".

If some dimwit from Texas wants to believe that every night he talks to a big man with a beard who lives in the sky, that's okay by me I suppose. I don't think they should be able to hold any position of responsibility like say a bus driver, but hey, that's just me. "What did your imaginary friend say to do George? Hmmm, I don't think that's a good idea"