Of course.
Many IDists and creationists tend to assume that being in the minority is sufficient evidence of their hypotheses being correct. I just wanted to state that the brilliant scientists on the ID side of the argument are in opposition to the majority, and just as brilliant, scientists on the evolution side.
"Why is it necessary for so many scientists to feel they have no room in their theories for that possibility?"
Because scientists are accustomed to following a specific methodology and a well defined path to verification of their theories. IDists are attempting to circumvent that methodology and wedge their hypotheses into society without developing, testing and attempting to falsify those hypotheses and without publishing their findings in a forum where it can be discussed and reviewed by others trained in the appropriate fields.
In science, hypotheses are tested and when deemed up to snuff they are presented to a group of other scientists *external to the work* who attempt to find problems in the methodology and/or conclusions. In the case of ID, the work done by IDists are not presented in front of a group of scientists eager to tear it apart but in front of an in-group who have no interest in falsifying the work.
Much of the critiques of ID have been the same as would occur within science had the IDists published and presented their work to scientists outside the main ID support group. Because IDists have only presented their work in public forums, the critiques also take place in the public forum.
So far, the work presented by the DI (and other houses of ID) have failed to pass peer review.
I have known a number of scientists who have had their work refused for publication at one time or another because of improper methodology or incorrect conclusions, or have had their work picked apart by other scientists after publication. The only difference between ID and other science work is the forum in which the critiques happen.
The attempt of IDists and creationists to remove or inhibit the teaching of evolution in schools, or to give ID equal billing is a different but related situation.
Those attempting to remove/inhibit evolution are using ID as a tool to cast doubt on the veracity of the SToE. This has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID but has everything to do with its use as an anti-evolution crowbar.
Those attempting to give ID equal billing to the SToE are encountering the same resistance any hypothesis that hasn't passed peer review would receive. Until the ID proponents have published ID related papers in the appropriate journals and their hypotheses have suffered the 'corrections' of qualified scientists they will not be taken seriously by science. Just to repeat myself; until those hypotheses have shown they can stand on their own, survive criticism and are consequently considered valid, they will not be appropriate to be taught in science class.
Just an interesting note: in one critique of some of Dembski's work, the scientists who wrote the critique actually worked out and suggested a technique that would eliminate some of the inconsistencies found. They didn't just say where Dembski was wrong but suggested a 'fix' for what was wrong.
"Many IDists and creationists tend to assume that being in the minority is sufficient evidence of their hypotheses being correct. I just wanted to state that the brilliant scientists on the ID side of the argument are in opposition to the majority, and just as brilliant, scientists on the evolution side."
I really don't have any way of knowing what IDists or creatonists think about being in a minority.
I'm just making the point that sometimes the majority has been found to be wrong - so being in the majority doesn't necessarily make a person right.
"IDists are attempting to circumvent that methodology and wedge their hypotheses into society without developing, testing and attempting to falsify those hypotheses and without publishing their findings in a forum where it can be discussed and reviewed by others trained in the appropriate fields."
Ok...I wouldn't know much about this either.
And how about this scientist...do you place him in that category?
"So far, the work presented by the DI (and other houses of ID) have failed to pass peer review."
What would you say would be the major reason for failing pass the muster?
"The attempt of IDists and creationists to remove or inhibit the teaching of evolution in schools, or to give ID equal billing is a different but related situation.
Those attempting to remove/inhibit evolution are using ID as a tool to cast doubt on the veracity of the SToE. This has nothing to do with the scientific merits of ID but has everything to do with its use as an anti-evolution crowbar."
I personally am not one of those who would oppose evolution in the classroom. However...as I look back at some of my own experiences in science classes taught by atheist teachers it does irk me that they gave us the impression evolution explains the origin of life.
They were wrong about that...and I think that sort of thing can create resentment towards evolution.
"Just to repeat myself; until those hypotheses have shown they can stand on their own, survive criticism and are consequently considered valid, they will not be appropriate to be taught in science class."
OK...fair enough.
Do you think the fact that God enters into their equation makes it more difficult for them? Are the odds stacked against them because of this?