acroyear | on real science vs "design"

from a review of a very technical article, "Evolution of the Molecular Machines for Protein Import into Mitochondria"...
EvolutionBlog : What Real Science Looks Like:

This, you see, is how real scientists respond to the fact of biological complexity. By rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty. This was a short review article, yet it had fifty-seven references. The authors ferreted out the patterns that were emerging from the hard work done by numerous previous scientists and demonstrated that they point to a clear evolutionary scenario for the formation of these complex machines. They then showed how evolutionary reasoning points towards possible furture research.

Compare that to the way ID folks treat complex molecular machines. They just sit there, slack-jawed, never getting beyond childish bleats about how they're just too darn complex to have evolved. If they respond to this article at all it will only be to dismiss it, unread, as insufficiently detailed for their tastes.

A common refrain from ID folks is that they are not treated respectfully by scientists. One reason for that lack of respect is the fact that there is no respect coming the other way. Countless scientists toil in obscurity to unravel the evoution of one particular set of complex molecular machines. The sheer hard work and brain power leading up to this article is remarkable.

The ID folks don't care. Instead, Ann Coulter publishes a hundred pages or so of wall-to-wall lies about evolution, and William Dembski brags about being her science consultant. Jonathan Wells writes a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design for the right-wing press Regnery. You can be sure it will contain nothing that is both true and important. Michael Behe can only fold his arms and shake his head when confronted with the enormous amount of empirical evidence against his argument (meanwhile making no contributions of his own beyond some breathtakingly unrealistic mathematical models). And the whole lot of them screech, banshee-like, about how ID is going to carry the day, and how Darwinism is just an empty ideology.

Shame on anyone who deals with respectfully with such people.