Secularists: "We Were Not Intelligently Designed."

The U.S. Supreme Court outlaws "creation science" coursework and Jones does the same with ID. He says creationism stems from "Christian fundamentalism" and ID is "a mere relabeling of creationism" and a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" that's forbidden because it contains "beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."

Most ID proponents aren't fundamentalists and a few are non-Christians or nonreligious. Inside and outside the courtroom, defenders distinguish ID from creationism, saying it doesn't necessarily identify the "intelligence" with God or teach creationists' Bible-based particulars.

University of Wisconsin science historian Ronald L. Numbers, a critic of ID and author of "The Creationists," thinks it's inaccurate to lump ID and creationism together, commenting that this is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

How typical of secular leftists. They may be a lot of things, but unpredictable isn't one of them. I'm not an advocate of Intelligent Design, but I do see it as a baby-step in the right direction. Of course, for the monkey-boy zealots, any thought process that does not erect an altar, burn a little incense, and sacrifice its children to the Darwinian paradigm is heretical in the extreme. Thus the assault on ID. And what better method of thoroughly discrediting it, than by associating its proponents with the lunatic, froth-mouthed, step-on-a-crack-and-break-your-mother's-back superstitionists--the young-earth creationists? Forget an actual debate or a coherent rebuttal. Forget debunking ID on its lack of scientific merit. Just write it off as kookery, and get back to performing ablutions before Darwin.

Do you see the dishonesty and fear wafting off these folks like the noxious emanations of a Woodstock attendee? I think on some level, deep down in their simian souls, they know their position is scientifically and philosophically bankrupt. Otherwise, why the stiflement of all divergent views? Why the dissembling? Why cut the competition off at the knees?

And of course, accepted as a given by Judge Jerkweed and others is the notion that if one is a Christian (perish the thought) one cannot possibly hold to scientific views--particularly if those views entail accepting scripture at face-value, instead of laughing it off as the delusions of camel-buggering nomads who spent a little too much time under the desert sun.