Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers

It is indeed a shame that the legitimate questioning of accepted scientific principles is discouraged. This is after all historically how science has progressed.
However I would blame the creationist/IDist movement for this current climate of closed thinking and paranoia rather than liberals, atheists or advocates of evolution in general.Most scientists are interested in the truth. That is the truth of nature as revealed by the scientific method which itself has developed as a means to nullify bias, promote objectivity and reach the most accurate conclusions possible.
With this in mind most scientists would relish a genuinely major breakthrough that caused us all to re-evaluate and enhance our current understanding. Yes there would be resistance as there always is when any established theory is challenged. However if a new theory was able to make more accurate predictions, explain currently unexaplainable phenomenon and pass all the tests of replicability and independent verification that are the hallmarks of good science it would ultimately be welcomed and those that discovered it be honoured with prizes and prestiege.IDism is not science for various reasons but most generally because it's aims are the direct opposite of science. Where science seeks to form an objective truth through evidence based investigation, ID seeks to verify a highly subjective set of unshakable beliefs by locating evidence that can be interpreted to support it's physically unfounded claims. It does not follow the scientific method or demonstrate any of he hallmarks of good science described above.IDists leap on any challenge to the established theories with utter glee on the (invalid) assumption that if current theories are wrong that this will result in ID theories being more widely accepted.It is then unsuprising that scientists, who struggle already in communicating the nuances of scientific investigation to the general masses, get defensive when any alternative to current thinking is seen as somehow adding to the claims of those that they know to be doing fake and bad science. "Science" rooted in faith based methodologies that are the very antithesis of scientific in nature and whose predetermined conclusions are dressed up in scientific clothing to give them the illusion of the same authenticity that science has earned through it's results.If it were not for the ID movement and it's unscientific dogma based hatred of current theories scientists would be in a position to more open mindedly evaluate evidence based alternatives and explore other avenues without letting the metaphorical lunatics take over the asylum.As things stand - If there are amendments to be made as regards evolutionary, and other religiously contentious, theories they are less likely to be examined in the current climate that is the result of ID non-science and the dangers this presents.As things stand

Creationism would not and could not exist without unquestioning faith in the accuracy of the unfounded and unconfirmable stories of the bible.
Evolutionary theory originated from well documented evidence that is available for all to analyse.Q: Which of these origins has a basis in science and which does not?Creationism has never predicted a single thing regarding as yet undoscovered evidence it would expect to find as a logical consequence of it's theories. All it can ever do is provide implausible alternatives for evidence once located by proper scientists.Hundreds of fossil finds have been consistent with predictions by the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. The mechanism for inheritance (genetics) has also been found to be completely in accordance with evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin who knew nothing of genetics. The genetic tree of life is absolutely in accordance with that predicted by evolution by means of natural selection and genetic mutation.Q: Which theory provides random, dispirate and disjointed explanations for physical phenomenon once they are found and which theory has passed various potential refutations to produce an elegent all encompassing theory of the origins of species little changed from it's original?Creationist conclusions are based on unfounded and uncorroborated biblical accounts of creation which their "scientists" then seek out evidence for.Evolutionary conclusions are based on physical evidence and the details of the theory (the mechanism by which inherited change takes place) have changed as new physical evidence and scientific understanding has been gained.Q: Is there a single creationist conclusion that is based solely on physical evidence with no initial reference to biblical creation? If it has no scientific conclusions how can it be considered science in any way shape or form?It is worth noting that all creationists are Christian fundamentalists but not all atheists are scientists (in fact very very few). Frankly most scientists are happily going about their business relatively unaware that "nutjobs" like you and me take this whole thing seriously enough to spend our time debating it. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.You live in a fantasy land where you are the persucuted minority with some sort of secret truth that the rest of the world, and scientists in particular, are conspiring to withold.It is, indirectly, for sharing this paranoid view that the good professor has been ridiculed and rejected by his peers (along with his other various indiscretions that have already been pointed out)