Blocking Alternatives to Darwinism

BreakPoint | You Can't Have It Both Ways

In August, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article argued that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested intelligent design as an alternative.

This article had to go through the same peer-review process as any other scientific paper. But that wasn't enough for many Darwinists. Members of the Biological Society of Washington, as well as the National Center for Science Education, wrote to the journal protesting that the article was "substandard" -before they'd even read it. Even the Biological Society's governing council distanced themselves from the article, saying that had they known about it beforehand, they "would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."

One of the most defensive faiths is the belief in hardcore Darwinism. They don't allow anything that doesn't fit into their strident beliefs to even be considered. That's not science, that's fundamentalism.