ID vs Neo-Darwinian

I came across an article on the ongoing discussion of ID vs. Neo-Darwinian ideas. It is the usual condescending combination of polemic and factual discussion, but one quote stood out:

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my far-fetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user’s manual neatly embedded in the apparently function less “junk DNA” that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven’t come up with anything to report.

He is wrong about that. The ID vs. Neo-Darwinian debate has a lot more to do with ideology (of both the secular and religious varieties) than it does about science. The origins of cilium are argued back and forth with just so stories of chemical coincidence and the miraculous. So too, would the debate go on about how by accident and evolution a junk DNA database arose in our genes.
There is no proof to the closed mind.

Sex and the City people end up 50 year old babies

The Hartford Advocate has a sad article, “Why I´m Divorced And why you´re next
Here is yet another person with the benefits of wealth, education, health, friends, and opportunity, mired in depression. This is why you have to be deeply involved in your community and work hard to maintain the sexual interest of your partner. You need the former because it isn’t fair to expect one person entertain you all the time, nor to give your life meaning. You need the latter because that is the only thing you can get exclusively from your partner so you have to protect and maintain it.