Discuss what, exactly? This author ascribes to ID supporters the numero uno lash of antisemitism .... denying the Holocaust.
But, as usual, I'm not surprised. For if Darwinian Evolutionary science was so compelling, so convincing, just why on earth would such a lame attempt at tarring ID supporters be attempted?
Oh....I forgot: b/c evolution itself has turned out to be a faith system itself which its practicioners relentlessly deny. It is said all cults have the same thing in common: one person, usually a man, writes a set of 'documents'. Then, followers ooze out of the woodwork, and proclaim the person 'the answer'. And then the cultists start acting really weird. This article sounds alot like that...
The analogy is a good one. ID supporters are deniers of science.
Nope. The author (quite correctly) cites Holocaust denial as another example of an "argument" where one side has facts and the other side has bullsh!t, to illustrate why such cases should not be treated as if there were a real controversy to be sorted out.
Actually, the comparison is quite apt. One one side you have a dedicated group of researchers who have interviewed survivors, camp guards, and pored over tons of paperwork to document a widely accepted historical fact. On the other side you have a group of cranks who look for minute flaws in that research and then extrapolate those flaws into their own ahistorical theory of a "Massive Joooo Conspiracy".
Because ID'ers and creationists are attempting an illegitimate (and intellectually lame) "end run" around the normal process of professional review to which any other scientific idea, or proposed curricula item, is subject.
As any consultation of the research literature will objectively indicate, evolutionary theory is compelling and convincing to professional scientists actively engaged in relevant research. BTW, if ID, or any other approach, should prevail over evolutionary theory in that venue it would only be for the good. A new approach would only be adopted if genuinely superior, or offering some unique advantages, in delineating and solving research problems or otherwise advancing knowledge.
The problem is that ID'ers and creationists lack either the patience or confidence (and many of us believe the integrity) to achieve a place in the curricula the same every other scientific principle has -- by first succeeding in the market place of scientific ideas. Instead they have adopted popular and political pressure tactics, demanding that schools teach a "controversy" that doesn't exist (at least yet) in science itself.
There are multiple reasons that all persons (even, if not especially, creationists and ID'ers themselves!) should resist this approach.
The very fact that ID required a special exemption from normal vetting, and was included in curricula prior to peer acceptance, will tend to mark it as illegitimate, lacking in merit, and tag it as crankery or pseudo science. Indeed this effect is already operative from decades of creationists attempting to oust evolution or impose antievolutionary views by political means. That doesn't justify the continuation of such approaches, UNLESS of course ID'ers and creationists somewhere deep down recognize that their ideas don't have any real prospect of prevailing on merit; unless the whole thing isn't really about science at all; unless, IOW, the critics of ID and creationism are essentially correct.
I happen to think that the critics are obviously correct. No scientist who genuinely believed in their ideas, however marginal they might be initially, would ever adopt the patently stupid and counterproductive strategy which ID'ers and creationists energetically pursue.
Anything of this type will ultimately benefit leftist-extremists, multiculturalists, identity group victimologists, social relativists and advocates of pop-culture-oriented dumbed-down curricula. They are the ones who most commonly use arguments of "fairness," "equal time," the importance of covering "controversy," the (contradictory) importance of not subjecting identity group members to controversial doctrines that might make them uncomfortable, and a plethora of similar excuses to justify inclusion of material into the curricula that could never make it on objective merit.
Conservatives are the ones who traditionally have opposed such nonsense, and have principally and most effectively done so by insisting on hard-nose, merit based, objective curricula of the highest academic standard.
It is extremely damaging -- and damaging far beyond the science curricula -- for conservatives themselves to adopt the same approach, particularly on a high profile issue, and particularly to invest so much effort in making it a high profile issue. It undermines our efforts to limit incursions of leftism into the social science curricula and other areas.
Why not? The methods of both groups are shockingly similar. Exploit weak points in arguments, turn people's words against them--it's like they're sharing notes.