The treatment of Intelligent Design

Is the theory of Intelligent Design held to abnormal standards by the scientific community?

ID exists in the environment of today, and that environment that can be characterized by multiple, distinct dimensions. These dimensions include time (the year 2006) and field (biology). The comparison of ID to the early years of evolution theory holds all dimensions constant save time. The inherent uncertainty in reliance on historical records presents a challenge in our development of a full understanding of the environment of evolution theory in its early years. Any comparisons we may yet draw will suffice only to describe how the environment may change along this one dimension -- a partial derivative, so to speak, with respect to time.

It is certainly valid to consider a comparison that holds all dimensions, including time, constant save the field of study. To what standard are other scientific theories in their early stages held in the present day? How does the treatment of ID compare with the treatment of new theories in anthropology, seismology, or quantum physics? In other words, what is the partial derivative with respect to field?

Additionally it can be asked whether the treatment of a proposed theory represents a continuous function at the point in question, which is (2006, biology). Is ID held to the same standard as other new theories in biology, or does ID have a different value than other theories at that same point do?

Does the theory of Intelligent Design receive abnormal promotion from its supporters?

In the present day there are undoubtedly individuals and groups whose passion for their own theory, in their own field, is as great as or greater than ID proponents’ passion for ID. How does ID compare to other theories with respect to the following:

• production of for-profit books and other items in support of the theory;
• appearances in mainstream media reports; and
• funds allocated for research and awareness?

If ID does receive abnormal promotion, there are two possible reasons why. First, ID’s proponents may have ulterior motives. The terms “for-profit” and “awareness” hint at this possibility. Second, ID’s proponents may feel that ID is more important, socially and culturally, than other new theories. Quite simply, why? Why is ID so important that it should be thrust into the public consciousness prior to the development of a scientific core of evidence?

I lack the knowledge and means to provide a thorough answer to the questions above. Even so, I believe that ID is not science; that ID’s proponents want it to be given the weight of science; and that they promote it as if ID were better than science. ID's supporters treat ID as a sociocultural phenomenon that cannot be bothered with the deliberate pathways of science. Is it any wonder that ID has received a backlash from the scientific community, even without that community holding ID to a higher standard?