True in theory. However, if the facts are imagined to be good, you have to wonder why almost none are convinced given the time ID has been touted and the attention it has created for itself. And, as the lead article of this thread makes marvelously clear, the claims of ID indeed do not stand up to examination.
When Richard Feynman was pushing his subatomic theory, he was the only one for a while. It turned out he was right, and the accepted evidence against his position was wrong.
Feynman was simply the only one out there where he was at the time. He also had a testable theory and was superbly capable of making a case for it. ID has only vague mumbles about somebody having designed something sometime, a smokescreen for witch doctors who don't believe in a nature that can run without the constant intervention of supernatural beings. Witch Doctor science.
"... if the facts are imagined to be good, you have to wonder why almost none are convinced given the time ID has been touted and the attention it has created for itself. "
***So, you seem to have access to the number of scientists who a are convinced -- where did you get that number and how do we verify it?
ID has only vague mumbles about somebody having designed something sometime, a smokescreen for witch doctors who don't believe in a nature that can run without the constant intervention of supernatural beings. Witch Doctor science.
***If ID only has vague mumblings, then how did it get this far? Why hasn't science dispensed with it? On another thread I dispensed with Astrology in 2 sentences proceeding from their supposed scientific evidence. My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation? If it's witch doctor science, it should be just as easily dealt with on a rational level.
On Patrick Henry's listolinks, there are some great discussions about shooting down various assumptions made by creationists as they come up with a 10^260 probability (or whatever), but I don't see a corresponding rebuild of the scientifically based assumptions that lead one to generate a more plausible number. This debate has all the earmarks of a religious squabble.