This doesn't even come close to the number of good-for-you/bad-for-you/good-for-you/bad-for-you articles that come out in the popular media about particular foods.
Let's face it, the grant system has taken science on the edge of alchemy, with wild promises of drastic results (e.g., stem cells) that are -- at best -- decades to centuries down the road. We have wild tales of doom-and-gloom from every corner of "science".
And then there's the pompous superiority of scientists who proclaim idiocy upon any individual who doesn't hold to the theory of the day which is "right" and "the only valid scientific explanation" until the next one comes along. Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Hawking. And even he can't figure out what he's doing. See here and here. At least string theorists don't call you an idiot if you don't declare 5 times a day that their theory is right, genuflecting to Cambridge. These petitions signed by scientists are nothing but the condemnation of Galileo under a veneer of a democracy.
With junk science and the absolute allergy of public schools to any mention of religion (to the point where any other faith-based philosophy -- say Communism -- has much more free reign) can you blame anyone for wanting to use ID to poke a stick in the eye of the self-righteous secular fetishists? Nobody wants ID taught, really. If you're religious, you want your religious point of view taught. It's just an attempt to undermine the existing order.
On a personal note, I am a mathematician (not a "mathematician" like Hawking -- he's a physicist) and if you believe in evolution, math is still true. If you believe in ID, math is still true. Axiom, conjecture, theorem, proof. No muss, no fuss. Of course, that kind of rigor is a little too difficult for most. Hence, if anything can be used to underscore the shifting sands on which so-called science is built, so much the better.
Patrick Kennedy is a scientist? Where's his degree from?
"We collected popcorn samples in 12 theaters from six chains in San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. We combined them into three "composites" (coconut oil, coconut oil with topping, and canola shortening), and sent the composites to an independent laboratory to be analyzed for calories, sodium, etc." -- CSPI in depth study on popcorn and coconut oil
So what's your criticism of this? I agree that popcorn in movie theaters is probably not high on my list of social concerns, but there's something wrong with the methodology? How?
"Research just published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) claims, in opposition to a bill currently before Congress, that unborn babies' perception of pain is unlikely until the third trimester. However, the article fails to mention the authors' ties to the abortion industry." -- CWA comment on the "fetuses feel no pain" article.
I'd certainly be inclined to be skeptical of this or any other research where the author was a clear advocate of one position or other. So, given that we have grounds to suspect the motives, can we find anything wrong with the substance of the paper? Merely pointing out one side or other has a vested interest does not invalidate their position, it just suggests one needs to scrutinize what they say extra-carefully.
On a personal note, I am a mathematician (not a "mathematician" like Hawking -- he's a physicist) and if you believe in evolution, math is still true. If you believe in ID, math is still true. Axiom, conjecture, theorem, proof. No muss, no fuss. Of course, that kind of rigor is a little too difficult for most.
It's not an issue of rigor. It's an issue of the clear difference between science and mathematics. Your misunderstanding of the former does you no credit.