Replying to Abbey
Just in case you were fretting about The Stanford Dialy's willingness to publish brain-dead pro-ID letters, rest assured that they also publish magnificent replies like this one. It comes from Jai Ranganathan, who is a graduate student in the biological sciences:
Intelligent design proponents would have you think that there is a raging debate within the scientific community between evolution and intelligent design. Don’t believe the hype. The validity of evolution comes as close to consensus as any concept in science ever gets, which is why the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and every other major scientific society in the United States has officially endorsed the centrality of evolution to the field of biology.
The scientific-seeming arguments for intelligent design have been totally refuted time and time again by the scientific community. Why then, do proponents of intelligent design keep trotting out the same old tired warhorses and insisting on the need to “teach the debate”? The reason is that the point of intelligent design is not, and has never been, scientific debate. A memo leaked in 2000 from a right-wing think tank known as the Discovery Institute, one of the leaders for intelligent design, indicated that this concept is actually a Trojan horse existing solely as a vehicle to inject a greater degree of extremist religious beliefs into American society as a whole. According to the memo, the purpose of intelligent design is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”
It's hard to improve on that.