I mentioned earlier that an article concluded that new studies of primates and humans was a paradigm shift. This is an important term in Kuhn's work
It alludes to how major scientific theories change--sometimes dramatically such as the shift from Ptolemaic astronomy.
I get a rhetorical sense from evolution advocates that this theory is unassailable and must last forever. No theory in science is expected to last forever. It is a constant testing process. Evolution is losing its scientific edge by over reacting to challenges.
I don't know if they read it but they should.
The problem is, ID is not forcing a paradigm change. It has no science behind it, and is having no negative effect on evolution. If anything, evolution scientists are tightening up a bit on their methods, and that's a good thing.
The changes which may (or may not) occur within the broad theory of evolution will come as they always do in science--from careful research and documentation, the scientific method--not from the attacks from non-scientists, indeed the anti-scientists.
The idea of "no science" behind it is the kind of hyperbole that makes me think evolution is about to collapse. That is such a ridiculous characterization of the work taken by scienties who support ID. To me, the important question is why are evolution proponents resorting to these hyperboles?
I think they too must be getting exasperated with the inadequacy of evolution as a theory. The consensus basis of science must be failing and they sense the power that could be lost in the break up of this consensus.
I have presented a clear piece of scientific study differentiating primates and humans but we have quickly returned to the claim that "this is not science."
When contrary evidence is offered, tautological denunciations seem inevitable in these threads.
Kuhn offers the interesting example of alchemy. Here we have a scientific community predicated on the expectation that lead can be converted into gold. They were just wrong! However, their community did produce important achievements in larger fields of chemistry. Why do ID scientists have to be treated like such dunces? Is that really part of the "scientific method"?