Read somewhere on the Net:

Dawkins has invested too much of himself in defending the theory of Evolution to be able to see problems with it rationally.

Scientists who are atheists are becoming quite critical of evolution as the sole explanation for the development of life on Earth. See for example, astrobiologist and cosmologist, Paul Davies’ book, The Fifth Miracle. I also encountered a palaeontologist from Wollongong University who was quite critical of the unrealistic claims of evolutionists for some developments of life on Earth. The problem is that the theory of Evolution has become a dogma in the eyes of some which protects a theological conviction, (viz, that there is no God), and any criticism of the theory is seen as grounds for an inquisition. Their emotional reaction is seen in their attempts to generate misinformation, namely the view that Intelligent Design is Creationism. Certainly they have answers to criticisms, but often only they are convinced by them.

Before condemning Intelligent Design one should read one of its proponents and Dembski is a good start.

I think part of the solution is de-constructing the oft-repeated myth that science and theology are enemies. Historically Western science emerged as an expression of Christian theology. The second stage is to calmly and rationally present the evidence in a fair and balanced way. That may mean also acknowledging the holes on Evolutionary theory as it stands. Intelligent Design does not support a deity of any particular religion and indeed it may push us beyond our present day religions to a notion of deity that is well in advance.

For an increasing number of scientists, the use of evolutionary theory to explain the emergence of life forms at *particular points* in the development of life on earth are about as credible as the wheels and gears used to justify an Earth-centred theory of the Solar System when it had passed its use-by date. When one thinks back to the days when Copernicus revived the heliocentric theory of the solar system, one is often told that the church blocked Copernicus. In fact, Copernicus’ writings show that the criticism came from fellow scientists and that the only support came from the Church, namely through Catholic Bishops Dantiscus and Todmann Giese, and the very powerful Cardinal Schoenberg – all of whom warmly welcomed his theory. Above all, the support came from Lutheran Professor of Astronomy, Georg Rheticus, without whom it is unlikely we would have known of Copernicus’ theory at all. So history teaches us that it is often the scientists of the day who oppose a change to their paradigm and the presence of religious faith should not be seen as a destroyer of credibility. Indeed, it was often the side that helped us move beyond a well-entrenched but ignorant scientific theory.