Thanks for the heads-up George. Yes, it is quite good.
A couple of quibbles: First of all, they keep referring to ‘intelligent design’ as a “new” attack on Darwin, when it’s eminently clear that it’s the same old attack in new garb. But I suppose that’s done for rhetorical benefit.
Second, they do spend an inordinate amount of time explaining intelligent design, and not nearly enough (or nearly the same amount, in fact) describing evolution. So they missed something of an opportunity to explain the power of the theory.
But these are both relatively small issues in the scheme of things. I also wish they’d quoted from Judge Jones’s decision at the end ... “breathtaking inanity” is a good line, after all, as is his claim that the supporters of intelligent design perjured themselves on the stand about their motivations.