I think that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience based on the objective measures (definition of science, requirements of a theory, methodology, etc) and I address these in other posts. This post is admittedly much more subjective: there are many aspects of Intelligent Design that have the "earmarks" of being simply a Trojan Horse for Creationism. These are particularly evident when compared to countless examples in history when an unpopular and unaccepted theory became mainstreamed.
1. The push into public schools.
Even if Discovery Institute now claims that it has no interest in teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, it cannot be denied that this was a primary goal during the early Intelligent Design movement. Many legal cases have occurred directly addressing whether it is acceptable to teach ID in public schools.
Compare this to the Theory of Continental Drift, with, just like ID, was unpopular and unaccepted when it was first proposed. It gained acceptance by publishing in peer-review literature, and by convincing other scientists first. Alfred Wegener certainly never proposed teaching this theory in public schools before it gained a scientific majority. Why didn't he?
2. The Wedge Document
Whether you consider the Wedge Document outdated or unofficial, it is still a clear statement by the leading organization supporting Intelligent Design that Design Theory is to be used as a tool to change the philosophical views of Americans. The document sets out certain goals to be achieved (number of books to be written, a number of papers to be published, etc) in order for ID to achieve its goal.
Compare this to the discovery of Dark Matter by Vera Rubin. With her work originally dismissed by peers, Vera Rubin's suggestion was able to win over advocates until it is fairly widely accepted today. But Dark Matter doesn't have a document like the Wedge document: spelling out a 'strategy' to gain acceptance.
Why doesn't it?
3. Impressing the Public
Intelligent Design organizations hold seminars and debates. They run a podcast and tend to focus more on publishing books for the layman rather than scientific research. That's all well and good, but real science tends to follow a different pattern:
Compare this to the original suggestion that the mitochondria is actually the remnant of a bacterial symbiotic relationship, popularized by Lynn Margulis. Although this hypothesis is not yet quite in consensus, it is certainly much more widely held than when first proposed. And yet, Lynn Margulis did not participate in public debates, give public seminars, or write (to my knowledge) layman-level books in support of the idea.
Why not?
Why does Intelligent Design have these aspects about it while these other cases of unpopular theories gaining reputation do NOT use these tactics?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
