Second verse, same as the first
The Post's first paragraph is shockingly similar to the Times' opening from just the day before:
"With their slick web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory."The second paragraph sounds familiar as they opine about Dover, Cobb Co., ID is just religion, and so on. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the Sunday Times.
They even echo the Times' effort to tear down the wall between church and state by calling for design theory --which they believe (mistakenly) to be tantamount to religion-- to be inserted into public school curriculum:
"Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate."
In their reiteration of the Times' position the Post writes:
"In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country, ..."Unnoticed? Apparently the editors at the Post don't read mainstream news magazines, don't read other newspapers, don't watch network news programs, don't browse the internet, or even watch Boston Legal. How could they have missed the national debate over how to teach evolution?
For my other thoughts on this piece just read my comments on the Times' editorial below.