Another convincing proof is the fact that there are similarities between species, which would be expected if they were all designed by the same Designer. If evolution is the great unifying principle in biology, why don't we see the evolution of species today? (The sort of massive change that would be necessary for Darwinism to be true. Imagine. Mammals becoming whales, reptiles becoming birds, etc.) In the absence of such evidence, the proof is strong that one intelligent designer is responsible for whatever similarities exist in nature.

The State Board of Education voted unanimously on Sept. 2 to continue teaching evolution as part of the biology curriculum in Utah’s schools.

In a position statement, the board said the theory of evolution was a mayor unifying scientific concept appropriate for public instruction.

But Utah state Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, is countering the board’s position with his “Academic Freedom Act,” a document that looks like draft legislation to present “intelligent design” in classrooms as well.

On Sept. 2, he told the state board the theory of evolution had “more holes than a crocheted bathtub,” adding that barring a discussion of intelligent design was a move akin to censorship.

... over the last several decades, a loose and sometimes uncomfortable common front has been forged between fundamentalist Christian creationists and New Age-flavored practitioners of alternative archaeology. Although the two sides' philosophies are sharply different in some areas, they've both launched forceful attacks against the authority and guiding ideology of modern science. (In general, these movements rely on reinterpreting existing data, although some prominent alternative-archaeology researchers fund their own expeditions and research, and there are creationists involved in biblical archaeology.)

According to the lawsuit, UC's board of admissions also advised the school that it would not approve biology and science courses that relied primarily on textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books, two Christian publishers.

Instead, the board instructed the schools to "submit for UC approval a secular science curriculum with a text and course outline that addresses course content/knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."

"It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view," said Patrick H. Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is assisting the plaintiffs.

The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.

Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.

The state Board of Education next week will consider a position statement on the matter. The statement likely will support the current curriculum and include language on teacher sensitivity to student beliefs ... Buttars plans to address the board on his stand that evolution should be taught "as an unsubstantiated theory."

If the board refuses, Buttars said he would request that intelligent design be taught in some sort of humanities class.

Guillermo Gonzalez , an ISU astronomy professor who is nationally known for his research on intelligent design, said his colleagues are creating a hostile work climate by circulating the petition.

"I'm really taken back by the viciousness of the attack," Gonzalez said Thursday in an interview with The Des Moines Register. "I'm amazed at the campaign they are orchestrating to try to intimidate me with this petition."

Gonzalez said he doesn't want to attend forums because he doesn't approve of Avalos' [associate professor of religious studies at ISU] tactics.

He said he is the only "lightning rod" for intelligent design at ISU, which is why he said he feels the petition targets him.

Baldwin said she understands Gonzalez's reluctance to attend the forum.

"I think the problem here is we have a great number of faculty en masse who have said this is not science," she said. "Dr. Gonzalez is there, perhaps, alone. I don't know how many supporters he has in his department."

In an e-mail, Keith Pennock, the program administrator of Discovery's Center for Science and Culture (which runs its intelligent design work), concurs. "Mr. Martin is a member of the Discovery Board in his individual capacity and does not represent the Microsoft Corporation. Does Microsoft support Discovery's work on intelligent design? No."

Kennock ends his e-mail to Salon with criticism over the inquiry into the groups that finance Discovery's work. "Finally, I have been asked to advise you that it is unseemly for people who dislike one program at a think tank (or a university -- or an on-line magazine, for that matter) to try to pressure funders of other programs there," he writes. "It is illiberal and contrary to the spirit of free speech."

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "We do not have to respond to criticism from intelligent design people because they are not of science." Truth: It is a fallacy to say they are not of science because they do not subscribe to a philosophy of materialism. It is contrary to an essential principle of science that inconvenient criticism can be disregarded. One of the time-tested principles of science is that the science community must attempt to "falsify" the results of research. Only conclusions that cannot be falsified should be accepted as sound research. The refusal of evolutionists to answer serious criticisms might be an evidence that they have no answer and prefer to silence the conversation.

Recurring statement of evolutionists: "There is no evidence to support intelligent design and no evidence that challenges evolution." Truth: Such a statement can only be made by a liar, or one who has never read what the intelligent design scientists are saying. Evolutionists get away with the big lie tactic by suppressing the works of intelligent design scientists.

All nine phyla of complex animals appeared suddenly in the Cambrian rock in China. No complex animals appear in Pre-Cambrian rock. No transitional forms of simple creatures evolving into more complex creatures appear in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Some Chinese scientists have rejected Darwinism because of these findings. The American evolution establishment has suppressed the information, so that many American scientists and students of science have never heard of the "Cambrian explosion." Scientists in Communist China have significant freedom of thought and publication. Biological science in democratic America is under the dictatorship of the evolution establishment. However, if President Bush has his way, high school children will be allowed to hear about the "Cambrian explosion."

Like the theory of evolution, intelligent design science has links to a philosophy, namely the philosophy of Deism and natural law. However, intelligent design science is protected from corruption by its careful adherence to the empirical disciplines of Francis Bacon.

In conclusion, whether one believes in evolution or intelligent design science, one is obliged to consider that at present, the intelligent designers are operating at a higher level of integrity than the evolution establishment.

"As I understand and as I read, the intelligent design concept is a concept that many of us have sympathy with, but it's not one based on science, and to put it in a science curriculum seems to me would be a misplaced position," Burningham said. "We always (try to) separate in this state very carefully our religious beliefs (from state operations). That general philosophy, it seems to me, needs to continue."