And a bad year for a 19th-century creation myth. It’s understandable that Darwinists are a bit dejected.
Everyone must have known all along that darwinism wasn’t science: the field never received a single nobel prize.
The ID camp has been diligent in critiquing darwinism, but the nature of the design remains obscure: christian stragglers who have skewered the darwinians but failed to really explicate design beyond a reasonable demonstration of its reality.
But its reality should have been clear from the start and was so in the late eighteenth century to nineteenth century before darwinism confused everyone. The school of kant produced the teleomechanists at the dawn of the discipline of biology: the design argument in a better form arose at the start long before the religious realm began to exploit the free gift of darwin-dummy science for crypto-theistic, if not creationist ‘designs’ of their own.
The problem is that ‘intelligent’ design can’t be used to specify a designer: the subject is simply a complex problem current science can’t solve because it can’t handle teleological issues. So it was obvious from the start that design lies behind evolution but the interpretation of that still eludes all parties…