Arguments VII - Perfection required

This will be a short one. I finished looking at the Discovery Institutes rebuttal slides about the Nova show "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" and I noticed a trend I have missed until this. Why does Evolution, in fact why does Science, have to have 100% of every answer with stacks of absolutely perfect evidence before you ID'iots will admit it's true? You refuse to hold up your own pet ideas to the same yardstick!

Science never claimed perfection, and your poster children like Behe and Dembski know it. So you stand up on your very shaky soapbox and ask for perfection knowing full well that science will never show absolutes. You then twist that with word games and lies and do lots of marketing and declare yourself as better.

So what yardstick do you hold up to Intelligent Design -- None! You haven't bothered with a yardstick of any length because the only people who agree with you are already on your side. You publish nonsense in popular press because there is no level of proof required. ID'iots like Dembski just spout off and just put down anyone who disagrees with as not being smart enough. Behe at least admitted to his own failings, and the failings of Intelligent Design and his pet idea of irreducible complexity, but he still wasn't man enough to face the evidence presented during the Dover Trial.

So this also drives the reason for my little blog. I don't care if none reads it, but I am going to keep reading, exploring and if you ever do raise up a real yardstick, I will be the first one to say so. In the mean time stay the HELL out of the science classroom, tell your ID'iots infiltrating school boards to drop this agenda because you and I know how hollow it is. The best you will do is damage science education and do a disservice to the education of our young. Unless that is one of your objectives as well!