1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.Item 1 is scientifically irrelevant. No one will win money betting on the success of scientific theories based on politics.
2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.
5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.
The only possible response to item 2 involves rubber, glue, and what sticks to whom.
Item 3 is why IDC isn't a science. Making falsifiable predictions is the best demarkation criterion for a science, and they just sold that down the river. Evolution is the unified theory of biology because it has survived a century and a half of careful tests, and is still going strong.
Item 4 is false, or at best irrelevant.
Item 5 assumes the conclusion, and proves why IDC is bad. Playing to inherent biases is wrong-headed. You need your science to factor out your biases, not confirm them. IDC will explain anything as design, while generating no new knowledge. Most people think moving backward is a bad thing.
Technorati Tags: evolution