The excerpt below will give you the flavor of the article.
"The current intelligent design controversy is a struggle within science between empiricism (what the evidence shows) and naturalism (the belief that no evidence that shows design can be admitted). … Surely, all the evidence must support naturalism! Unfortunately, many in science today seem incapable of a rational discussion of the problem of what happens when the evidence doesn't support it. Contrary evidence piles up, increasingly strained interpretations are invoked, the issues are politicized in order to gain time, and dissenters (real or imagined) are persecuted and suppressed."
Scientific revolutions are always resisted. As Kuhn makes clear. And they don't happen over night. The latest flap at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. over an article by Stephen Meyer is a case in point.
What makes ID so difficult to get accepted is its insistence of an intelligent agent. This is anathema to modern science. This in-spite of the obvious weakness of Darwin's theory.
Meyer's paper is just a hackneyed warming over of creationist arguments. It contains no new data and no original thought. The flap was over how an apparently creationist editor abused his position to publish something that doesn't conform to the generally accepted standards for reporting of scientific results.
What makes ID so difficult to get accepted is its insistence of an intelligent agent. This is anathema to modern science. This in-spite of the obvious weakness of Darwin's theory.
No, the problem is that ID gives us no objective ways of determining whether an intelligent agent was involved. It reduces to 'godiddit'.
And there are no obvious weaknesses in Darwin's theory.
But Kuhn was mostly wrong. Quantum Mechanics was accepted almost universally within a year of Heisenberg's ans Schroedinger's papers.