"ut many *more* radical ideas, like Velikovsky, the Dean Drive, Larmarck, Marx, the IDers, etc. are just dead wrong. Just because you're novel doesn't mean you're right."
A few notes on your list:
1) Vellikovsky's main point was not that his explanation was correct, but that the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation. The academic community relentlessly harped on the specific details while missing the big picture of massive historical documentation of cataclysm.
2) Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology. Lamarckism was actually never disproved, only a caricature of it was, and a few specific examples were shown to be false. But for more biochemical change, it has actually shown to be somewhat accurate.
3) The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
> the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation.
Yeah, "stuff happens." Wait logn enough and your city will be trashed by *something*. Not exactly a world-shattering realization.
> Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology.
Source, please.
> The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
They've had 4 billion years...
> the evidence of worldwide testimony of cataclysm demanded _some_ form of explanation.
Yeah, "stuff happens." Wait logn enough and your city will be trashed by *something*. Not exactly a world-shattering realization.
> Lamarck is actually regaining prominence in biology.
Source, please.
> The ID'ers are right, just give them time :)
They've had 4 billion years...