It seems as if the evidence in support of the theory of evolution just keeps piling up. As opposed to the evidence in support of "intelligent" design, which is another kind of pile.

Their analysis [of the harmful mutations in the chimpanzee genome] was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could — through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection — give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

The article does a very good job of explaining the basics of evolutionary theory and how the evidence in support has been built up from Darwin’s initial work until today. But the really remarkable thing about this piece is that the writers concentrated on the science and didn’t treat "intelligent" design as some kind of equal.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly how many in the press will report the Pennsylvania trial starting up this week. They will try to be fair and balanced by giving equal time to 150 years of science and the remanufactured crap (and absolutely no science) of creationism.

There’s no logical way to equate the two sides. But then logic really doesn’t have anything to do with this fight. It’s about whether American students will get a good education in science classes or religious indoctrination. If history shows us anything, knowledge and learning is the underdog.

evolution, intelligent design, washington post, science