The article linked here is about teaching evolution and/or "intelligent design." This is one of those subjects that gets discussed on a purity vs. purity basis, and so goes nowhere. The scientific purity says Darwinism is 100% correct, while the fundamentalist purity says evolution is 100% wrong.

The indefensibility of both positions is what has provided an opening for the Intelligent Design theorists. For example, in this article the I.D. proponent turns the tables on the scientists and says they are the dogmatists, not those who cite the Bible. He has a point, which many scientists acknowledge, though they'd never admit it in this particular debate. The neo-Darwinists have been attacked by other biologists for a number of dogmatic statements. It appears, for instance, that strict Darwinian natural selection may not apply below a certain threshhold of lifeform: to bacteria, for instance, or molds. And even in more apparently complex lifeforms, there may be other factors involved in what gets passed down, what is selected, and on what basis. The dogma of the so-called "selfish gene" is questioned by reputable scientists, for example.

On the other hand, the idea that the earth is 4,000 or 6,000 years old, as somebody says the Bible says, or that humans didn't evolve from other animal forms, is so antithetical to everything science says and does, that anyone who believes this will find themselves unqualified to get into a non-fundamentalist college or get a job even remotely having to do with science. This is the true tragedy of extending this debate into the schools.

There's more to be said on this subject at another time, but for now let's use this article to illustrate that it's not dogma versus the scientific method every time. That this person cites the Bible in defense of his intelligent design theory is not in itself non-reality based, if he cites it as evidence of past observations (as one cites an indigenous legend) or point of view. But citing it as Divine Truth makes it religion, and not in the realm of knowledge. So while he says the scientists are defending a religion (and metaphorically, this is accurate---though fundamentalists are not big on metaphor), he is trying to pass off faith-based theory---religion---as science.

That's how tricky this all gets, partly because both sides insist on extreme and oversimplified positions. It's the Crossfire of consciousness, our substitute for informed debate.

Teaching evolution as theory not fact / Intelligent design booster speaks out