Certainly there is something to be said for agreement in numbers when it comes to science. Doubtless there are cases where observers have been deluded and come up with highly improbable theories. But it seems that when consensus is given as a reason to accept or reject an arugment one might just as soon declare that objective reality is not dependant upon the number of people who accept or reject its claims.
ID and it opposite are two legitimate ways of doing science. Both begin with assumptions about the universe that are beyond proof, but neither is wholly unreasonable. I would posit that 99% of the world's population holds to one or the other of these assumptions, or a combination of the two.
If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know.
The missing piece for you is that they accept or reject it on merits. It's the other way around: the concensus is reached because of the merits, it does not attain merit purely through concensus. That would be argumentum ad populum.
Both begin with assumptions about the universe that are beyond proof
There's that "proof" word again showing a lack of knowledge of what scientific theory is.
but neither is wholly unreasonable.
Finally, we agree.
If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know.
If I find him I will have him trampled under Her Holy Hooves, that culinary infidel! And you know who you are, PL. Repent!
"If you can find an individual who seriously espouses spaghetti monster theory, please let me know."
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't a theory, any more than is ID.
They are both equally valid beliefs.
I hope that cleared things up.