Joined: Nov. 2006
I believe that misunderstandings cannot be killed except by the individual who holds the belief (How many pages of AFDave would you like to prove this point?) which means that ID and creationism can’t be called dead until we get kids who have only had a basic K-12 public education able to point out why the supernatural is considered out-of-bounds of scientific testing.
Yes, ID is now intellectually pathetic and cloistered, but it always was. I think it’s the post-Dover “Here’s a 135 page smack down from a conservative religious judge” euphoria that makes their idiocy seem more harmless, but we have to remember why they were a culture threat: emotional arguments supporting what a large number of people already believed in, a veneer of scientific authority, low entry qualifications, and a well-funded PR group. Those factors remain (even the veneer of scientific authority as the oblivious denizens of UD have shown) which leads me to believe that ID remains culturally viable. And since it's based on God-in-the-gaps and impossible-to-calculate probability estimates (which I believe to be two of the most seemingly plausible and easy-to-grasp creationist arguments for non-scientists), I also don't see it being irrelevant until those fallacies are obvious to the majority of the population.
So basically, they’ll have to change their legal angle (probably a more bottom-up than top-down method of getting it into schools like student evangelizing), but they’re pitifully unable to come up with new ideas or let old ones die, and this one seems profitable, so we’ll see ID pop up again.
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski
The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.