Here I am again.
Note the following from the article:
"The critics also claim that in the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. They then proceed to explain that I ought to understand something about this, because surely I can see that over a period of time, over many generations, a pair of dogs will "evolve". There is a high likelihood that the progeny several generations down the line will not look like the original pair of dogs. And then some of the critics will claim that this proves that all living creatures came from some original set of cells."
A thoroughly dishonest representation of most scientists' views on evolution and no attribution given.
The "five words" bit is also a thoroughly dishonest representation of the changes made to the Kansas standards. There's also a bit tossed in asserting that the fossil record does not support evolution.
This might surprise Behe, who is on record in "Darwin's Black Box" and under oath in court saying that the fossil record does support evolution.