Max Tegmark writes a cosmology circular for Scientific American than might have been published in Metaphysical American instead, in which he stumps for 4 tiered and towering actual infinities, infinite spatial extent, receeding bubble inflation, many worlds QM in each, and a string landscape in which all possible rules of physics are realized somewhere. Not only does it not have testable implications, it literally posits that every conceivable observation is actual and occurs countable infinity times, and the only meaning it leaves to anything like "likelihood" is the (utterly unobservable) average spatial distance between those infinite sets. Shall we can him for pretending his philosophy is science? In a footnote he will say something like, if you don't mind wild ideas, go to my website and check out my bananas theory of everything. Should he be blackballed from all cosmology departments?
Another one devotes a few lectures to discussing the anthropic principle and places it has been advanced, in cosmological fine tuning arguments or as an ad hoc explanation of the observed matter to anti matter difference or whatever. Can? Blackball? Just discipline?
Enough. There are ideas that are franky philosophical and entirely speculative, that nevertheless arise in scientific contexts and rely on some degree of familiarity with existing science and the evidence for it, that attract the minds of scientists and interest them. This does not make them into scientific theories. They are frankly philosophic ideas, and they often have critical weaknesses that are not apparent to the scientific specialist, but would be to a trained academic philosopher.
We don't try to police them out of existence. We'd stunt minds if we did. They are generally harmless and sometimes quite fun, and sometimes they may suggest real advances to theorists etc. I don't see any outside, a priori or rational reason, that ID fascination should be treated any differently. I am not thinking about curricula issues or secondary public schools, just college and up academia and what the profs and grad students and practicing scientists (including other research institution types etc) do among and for themselves. I see no harm in it.
And I think men like Dawkins, or others earlier in the thread speaking of "barbarians at the gate" and the like, see harm in it, pretty much purely out of bigotry, or perhaps more accurately an intellectual snobbishness that looks down its nose at religion of any kind.
Men are free to think what they like, by nature. They will say what they think. It is foolish to fight it and try to stamp it out. Instead, offer truth freely, and entertain speculation indulgently.
One man's opinion...
You don't see the difference, do you? This young physicist writes about a valid theory - Quantum Mechanics.
Where does ID start from? I would say nothing. That is the core of ID:
“Nothing” + “ID” = “Something”
Was such an event ever scientifically detected?
(If ID wants to be science it has to play by the rules.)
Did any lemma (a small proven hypothesis) like IC ever worked?
(Behe is trying, I know, but without success as I remind.)
Next ID problem is the act of IDing.
When does IDing happens?
Always, sometimes or never?
Never:
no ID
Sometimes:
What happens in between - evolution?
Always:
Then the theory of evolution is the best way I know to describe the constant process of IDing.
“Men are free to think what they like, by nature. They will say what they think. It is foolish to fight it and try to stamp it out. Instead, offer truth freely, and entertain speculation indulgently.”
Get used to the law. It is not allowed for teachers on public schools to preach in scientific classes.