Lest anyone think that Phillip Johnson is just another crazy, here's an excerpt from another one of those "in the year 2025" articles from World magazine, this time by Jonathan Wells. Acting as an objective scientist, Wells writes about how students became disillusioned with Darwinism:

Biology classrooms became platforms for indoctrinating students in Darwinism and its underlying philosophy of naturalism-the anti-religious view that nature is all there is and God is an illusion. In the ensuing public backlash, some people demanded that evolution be removed from the curriculum entirely. A larger number of people, however, favored a "teach the controversy" approach that presented students with the evidence against evolutionary theory as well as the evidence for it.

That reminds me of my old high school biology textbook, chapter 4, entitled "God is an Illusion." The textbook was written by Frederich Nietzsche, as all good biology textbooks are.

How did Darwinism alienate everyone? By lying, you see. Wells writes:

It didn't help the Darwinists when it became public knowledge that they had faked some of their most widely advertised evidence. For example, they had distorted drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are (in order to convince students that they had descended from a common ancestor) [. . .]

No, he doesn't write. He lies. Take a look at photographs of mammalian embryos. I dare you to correctly pick out the human embryo. Wells is not referring to the true nature of embryos, but to a controversy surrounding 19th-century (well, 1899) drawings of mammalian embryos. To read a fanatical account of this, go here. (But look out! It's the textual equivalent of arm-flailing and yelling.) A biologist named Earnst Haeckel made drawings of human embryos and then, assuming all mammals developed the same way, created drawings of other mammalian embryos in various stages of growth -- but without actually observing them. However, Stephen Jay Gould observes that Haeckel's theories were debunked fifty years ago.

Wells does a great job coming up with a fictional future for Darwinism, but this is only a piece of creative writing. How someone would make the jump from Darwinism to intelligent design (which is, despite the protestations of its supporters, rooted in Christian theology) is beyond me. "Well, science has failed. Time to move on to the supernatural!" That's certainly a scientific attitude. Or, perhaps, science will continue to investigate scientific explanations for evolutionary mechanisms, whether it is natural selection or a theory as-yet unproposed.

I emphasize that I acknowledge the flaws inherent in the theory of natural selection; I do not assume that it is a perfect theory whose conclusions should not be questioned. Of course they should be questioned, and it is largely intelligent design theorists that are doing the questioning. Good for them.

At the same time, intelligent designers are proposing a counter-theory to natural selection, one rooted in the a priori existence of a higher being, or some "intelligence" that created the universe. The next logical question to the intelligent design theorists is, "Who or what is this being?" Some of them are mute on this point; others suggest that it is the God of Christianity. Wells and Johnson imagine a future in which everyone agrees with Christian cosmology and science has died -- because it continually claims that God is dead.

Or it could be that Wells and Johnson completely misrepresent science, which is not concerned with God at all. Science concerns itself with testable and provable hypotheses, and there is no lab test for God.