I totally agree with the author’s criticism of the methods used by evolutionists in academia. Unfortunately, he seems to think “intelligent design” is a reasonable alternative, but it is every bit as much conjecture as evolution, and despite that crowd’s protests, “intelligent design” is just a euphemism for “creation.” A “designer” is a “creator.”
I do not believe in any kind of deity, but also cannot accept any of the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionist seem so desparate to prove there is no God, they will go to any lengths to prove their evolution—and the theist are so desparate to prove there is a God, they will go to any lengths to prove existence was designed. I cannot accept the evolutionary hypothesis because there is too little evidence, evolutionists cook the data, and they evade all the serious scientific questions, but one thing is certain, if the universe were, “designed,” the “designer” of it would be fired from any engineering company in the world.
Hank
Really? Such as?
I'm genuinely mystified where you get this impression. Granted I'm not a scientist, and granted I haven't done it in quite some years, but back in the 80's and early 90's I used to regularly read scientific journals, and occasionally attend scientific conferences (a couple AAAS conventions, and several semipopular symposia).
In terms of criticizing each others' ideas, and attempting to deconstruct controversies to crucial questions, I found professional scientists in evolutionary fields quite as aggressive -- if not more so -- as those in any other.
For instance, a series of presentations I attended in human evolution -- relating to the then hot topic of the "out of Africa" hypothesis versus the theory of regional evolution with gene migration -- was astonishingly aggressive. No actual shouting or name calling, no overt ad hominems, but very direct and detailed challenges by each side to the other during Q&A.
I noted, BTW, that Q&A at scientific conventions was always at least as long as the presentation, and usually longer. So, if an hour was available, it would typically be 15 minutes for presentation and 45 for Q&A. (As a layperson who hadn't gotten a preprint and read the paper in advance, this was sometimes a bit irritating to me. But, to the extent I could follow the debates, I could see that it was worthwhile.)
Whenever I attended creationism conventions the pattern would be exactly reversed. The presentation would be 45 minutes and the Q&A, if there was one, 15 minutes.
At the scientific conventions, if a questioner seemed to zero in on a flaw or weakness in the presenter's case, it generated obvious interest in the audience. Even before the Q&A started, you could see scientists scanning the rest of the audience, smiling in anticipation if they spotted an opponent ready to challenge the speaker.
By contrast, at the several creationism conventions I attended, if someone (even a fellow "creation scientist") dared to ask an aggressive or challenging question (a rare occurence) there would be an immediate and palpable discomfort and embarrassment on the part of the audience, as though someone had farted, and done so loudly.
To be blunt, the intellectual equivalence you draw between evolutionary science and creationism strikes me as thoroughly delusional (unless you've just never been directly exposed to each?). It bears no relation to reality, at least as I have experienced it.
Further apologies for psychoanalyzing, but I frankly suspect that you find "a plague on both their houses" posture to be self satisfying or aesthetically pleasing. But if you have better reason, I'll listen.
It could be I'm projecting. As a young man, having read a few popular, more or less (i.e. some more and some less) antievolutionary books, along with some pro-evolution, but also popular, books -- but before exposing myself extensively and directly to professional science and creationism -- I had an outlook not too much different from your own. I was sincere in this, but in retrospect I see my attitude then as smug and self-satisfying, and based in conclusions drawn without a remotely adequate examination of the evidence.
Maybe you've been less hasty and more circumspect than I was, and have a better case than I did, but I'm not seeing it at present.