*Sigh*

I'm really not in the mood to fool with this today, so here's a breif and humorless run down of the current top Google News articles relevant to the man v monkey debate.

Debate over `intelligent design' is a not-so-wise diversion from science education: "The real question is not evolution versus intelligent design, but whether this debate is worth more than a nanosecond of public effort? Given the more urgent challenges in science education today, it would be far more useful if the president turned his attention to America's declining edge in science and engineering." Right, 'cause the president attention to science hasn't done enough damage to stem cell research, or NASA, or...

Intelligent Design debate hits New York Times’ front page it's a Baptist News resource talking about what the New York Time's front page looks like.

Give intelligent design a place in classrooms Guess what this is about? "We are often told "real" scientists have not provided evidence that might support intelligent design. They suggest it is only disguised creationism. I would expect nothing less from anyone who worships Darwinism." Damn, I guess they've got me. Now if you'll excuse me, it's "Charlie Knows Best" Wendsday, and I haven't yet opened my Holy Book of English Naturalists or sipped a virgin's blood.

ACLU opposes Rio Rancho intelligent design policy Woot, ACLU!

How intelligent is Intelligent Design? I've only read the first few paragraphs, but the set up looks good.

An epic evolution It's a story about cricket, but the fact that it came up like this really amuses me.

BREAKPOINT: On solid ground: Evolution versus Intelligent Design More Baptist News Ug. "I was in Oxford recently, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible. In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove Who God was. I said, “If you could prove Who God was, you could not love God—which is the principle object of life.”" I really think reading too much of this drivel is going to drive me to drink (more). And I still fucking hate C.S. Lewis.