The statement that ID has been found to be pseudoscience is correct. If necessary, I can provide a list of more than a dozen major scientific groups that have made explicit statements to that effect. IMHO, scientists are the ones best qualified to determine what is valid science.
Did no respected scientists call relativity or quantum mechanics "pseudoscience
" in their early days? ID is new and debate is lively. That doesn't mean it should be slammed to the ground by a site that prides itself in neutrality.
I'm sure there were some respected scientists who called those theories "pseudoscience." Unfortunately, in the case of ID, it's a lot more than "some."
To the best of my understanding, ID pretty much traces it's basic argument to Paley's "watchmaker" example. That would be around 1800 or so. The modern ID movement was kicked off by Philip Johnson in around 1991.
According to the Discovery Institute: "Johnson, 65, is often referred to as the father of intelligent design" If you Google "who is the father of ID" the results will confirm Johnson is generally acknowledged as that person.
I thought Wiki was more concerned about accuracy than neutrality. You complained the page is inaccurate. I have pointed out the comment that "ID has been found to be pseudoscience" is correct and accurate. This is true in both the scientific and legal context.
Just to be clear here ..... ID is an excellent theological/philosophical argument. But that doesn't make it good science.
There are a number of PhD's in the field that have signed on and at least one prominent atheist.
Yeah, I'm familiar with DI's list of scientists who question evolution.
The response was NCSE's "Project Steve." A list of scientists supporting evolution started by NCSE as a direct response to DI's list. Named "Project Steve" in honor of Steve Gould. In order to sign, one had to be named "Steve" or a derivative (Steven, Stephan, Stephanie, etc.). Last time I checked Steves outnumbered DI's list by something over 1400 to 670 or so. Since only 1% of the population is eligible to sign the Steve list, that represents over 140,000 to less than 700. Now, it's been some time since I checked the numbers, but I have no reason to think they've changed much.
This isn't about who's right or wrong, but a reflection of how much support there is for ID in the scientific community. Now, I understand every theory has to start somewhere, but at this point in time, ID is little more than a fringe.
Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.
Oh yes, I saw that. It continues to amaze and even amuse me how scientists are eager to cede a decision of science to a political judge. Imagine if he ruled on a question of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics. Would scientists rally around his decision and say, see it's settled?
Since you quoted me on it, you must have noticed I first mentioned the many scientific organizations that reject ID. Would you like a list?
You also quoted me that arguments about what constitutes valid science are best decided by scientists. So there is no excuse for you not knowing that is my position.
Kitzmiller was mentioned only to demonstrate that ID has been declared pseudoscience in the legal forum as well as the scientific ones. There's a long history of creationist efforts to ban the teaching of mainstream science and/or mandate the teaching of creationism here.....
It's not the evolution side that takes the discussion outside the forums of science. In each and every case, Kitzmiller included, the creationists initiated action in legislatures, state boards of education, and local school boards. Who makes up those bodies? You'll find a lot more lawyers, farmers, and plumbers than scientists.
It continues to amaze and even amuse me how creationists will use political processes to fight against evolution then complain when those who oppose them go to the courts for a remedy.
No, Ken, the scientific portion should be settled in the forums of science. Right now, the best numbers I have indicate ID is losing by about 199-1. (Based on the ratios of Project Steve and DI's campaign.)
BTW, did you know the "Father of ID," Dr. Philip Johnson is a creationist lawyer, not a scientist?
Did you know the Discovery Institute is a political lobbying organization, not a scientific research center?
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
You quoted The Discovery Institutes's strategy without stating your objection. Note that "scientific materialism" doesn't mean what most people might assume.
My objection is that their goal is to overturn modern science and "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God ... To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life "
IOW, their purpose is religious, political and philosophical, not the advancement of science.
This, BTW, is the leading ID organization.
Given the history of creationists, and ID, it shouldn't be surprising the claims of ID are met with a substantial dose of skepticism.
ID may someday be able to make a case in biology or physics, but they aren't there yet .... by a long shot.