ID and the bias inherent in human nature

I'm sorry, but this is another bottleneck that I keep coming up against in ID/creationist arguments. Do you have any idea how many 'Darwinists,' even among working scientists, there are for whom 'Darwinism' is only an incidental belief? I work in immunology, and although a belief in Darwinism is required for my work (otherwise I'm just torturing mice - since by ID, you could in no way know whether results in mice transfer to humans), it's not fundamental for me the way that ID apparently is for IDists. It's only one of many, many truths that I believe.Most Darwinists have absolutely nothing riding on this debate, personally. Either they believe in God or they don't. Proving/disproving evolution will change their belief system not at all. IDists, however, have a belief system where the Creator made manifest his autograph in his works, and to disprove ID might be said to disparage the creator. If anybody were to be behind some sort of conspiracy, it wouldn't be the scientists, who have nothing riding on the debate, tend to be pretty open in general, and for the most part lack the kind of social adeptness required to carry on a conspiracy.The only thing scientists have riding on this is that they have dedicated their life's work to pursuing truth, and to see somebody willfully turn their head away from truth is infuriating. If there were some group out there that, despite all evidence to the contrary, insisted that DNA was synthesized in the 3'->5' direction, and furthermore insisted that we teach this in schools and consider this a valid branch of 'science,' scientists/evolutionists/ polymerasists would be equally as up in arms. We DON'T CARE a whit about 'evolution' being true, as we don't care whether Newtonian/quantum physics is true. We care only about truth.P.s.-
Besides, if we really were created by a God/alien/whatever, do you know how COOL that would be? Everything, absolutely everything, about life would be anthropology, writ large. Biology would no longer be able to tell us how the environment shaped life, but every little system in every organism would point to the methods/motives of the creator. It would be like machines in a postapocalyptic world trying to discern what humans were and why they did what they did (the intelligent designer did not necessarily have to be more intelligent than us). But there is no evidence for this and we ought to relegate this concept to science fiction stories.This message has been edited by zyncod, 05-17-2005 01:31 AM

I think it's pretty apparent. Why do IDists assume that, in the whole of scientific history, theirs' is the only hypothesis that the entire 'conspiracy' of practicing scientists have tried to stop? In every other paradigm shift in the sciences, as soon as the new hypothesis (eg, the genetic theory of heredity) started getting press, you had converts among the scientists to the new hypothesis and actual research in the area of the new hypothesis. ID has been around for at least 15 years and has no converts among biologists practicing in these fields and no (published) research - please don't trot out those three or four 'published' papers; they don't have any research in them. ID does, however, have plenty of press.The only assumption on the part of IDists would have to be that there would have to be a conspiracy on the part of scientists/evolutionists to suppress the ID viewpoint, especially in their own ranks. I'm pointing out that scientists have no reason to be attached to evolution more than any other theory in the sciences and am wondering: Given how improbable it is that scientists would pick the ID hypothesis, out of all hypotheses in history, to suppress, is it more likely that there is a conspiracy or that ID is flat out wrong? And is this not ironic, given that every single argument in ID states that highly improbable things don't ever happen?