Tale Of Two Frauds

MSNBC has an article 'Why Scientists Dismiss Intelligent Design' with an interesting take on nylon and ID (but answered by Dembski at Uncommon Descent blog).
The article complains that ID will be the death of science. Doubtful. Darwinists are a more serious threat. ID has been around for millennia. If scientists can't defend themselves now they must have gone into decline.
Defenders of Darwin spout notable absurdities, and always get away with it.

Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.

That's just what science can't do, and if the answer isn't ID either, then nobody has any answers. Does he mean 'evolution' or 'natural selection'? Even if you reject ID, the problem of complex specified information remains. De-theologize 'design', strip it of anthropomorphic overtones, change terminology, and then explain something.

I don't hold it against science that it can't explain complexity, but it is a fraud to say they have done so.

If ID isn't science, then Darwinian selectionism isn't either.

So Darwinists are crippling science with a hype factor, they will prove the death of science if the sci estab doesn't come to its senses.

‘Death of science'
After examining ID's two main arguments, the answers to the original questions — what does ID offer? And what can ID explain that evolution can't? — is not much and nothing, leading scientists say.

"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.

ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity — a Supreme Being — and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all, scientists say. They're more like last resorts. And, scientists argue, there is a danger in pretending that ID belongs next to evolution in textbooks.

"It doesn't add anything to science to introduce the idea that God did it," Provine told LiveScience. Intelligent design "would become the death of science if it became a part of science."