Q: How many Darwin sites does it take to stem the tide of intelligent design?
A: As many as they can build!
Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin's holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn't doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution.
The brights at the National Acadamies are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development. The answer they arrived at is that there aren't enough websites to convince people, so make more. Here's a new one.
Wired magazine briefly reported this in an obvious attempt to solidify its claim as the hip new mouthpiece of the Darwinian elite. Getting in good with the higher ups in the churc, they reiterate the new definition of science as Darwinian evolution:
"The National Academies and other scientific organizations have long said that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it counters many scientific observations about biology and the origins of life." (emphasis mine)Interestingly the article wraps up with this tidbit:
"The National Academies is a collection of private, nonprofit organizations that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter."So, it sounds as if the government has enshrined Darwinism as the only way to think about anything in science. I wonder whether Congress realizes it's chartered all other thinking about science out of existence?