Nick Matzke: How to erect a strawman
Then Nick finally plays his cards:
But of course what the fight is actually about is the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology. This is what the ID movement was and is set up to promote and defend. This is creationism, whether old-earth or young-earth. This is what the courts ruled an unconstitutional religious view in scientific classrooms, and thus this is why the creationists came up with the "intelligent design" smokescreen to attempt to dodge the constitutional problems that creationism would inevitably have.
First the ID movement was NOT set up to promote and defend "the idea of miraculous intervention in the history of biology". Nick cannot substantiate that claim.
What ID does say is that if there was some intervention, then so be it. That is if science is interested in reality.
And in the end there should never be any constitutional issues with teaching reality.
But speaking of smokescreens, that appears to be all that Nick can muster. After all it is well known that ID AND Creation would go away if Nick could just find some way to scientifically substantiate his anti-ID and anti-Creation position.
Why is it that weak-minded fools think they can erect a strawman and really think it is indicative of reality?