WG I know that you dwell in an alternate universe, thus responding to posts is usually a fruitless enterprise. However, it would be useful to set context for lurkers and maatzies.

1) Thousands of scientists worldwide will continue to carry out research, thousands of discoveries and hundreds of thousands of papers will be published guided by the modern synthesis of evolution. ID and/or "scientific creationism" is not only irrelevant to them but 99% of them don't give it a passing thought. What constitutes valid science is not decided by a majority vote-- and absolutely not by the opinion non-scientists.

2) ID and "scientific creationism" is only an issue in the US. The rest of the world is amused by our contortions.

3) Why then, should we even be concerned by ID and/or "scientific creationism"? Because, we do a terrible job of teaching science and mathematics K-12, and it can only get worse if all the efforts that the National Academy of Science (National Science Standards and the AAAS (Project 2021) have put into improving science teaching are subverted by the pretense that religious belief is the same thing as science.

4) Another reason for concern is that the push for ID and/or "scientific creationism" is primarily conducted at the local school board level, or as in the case of Kansas at the State Board of Education, i.e trying to influence politicians who are, as we know, susceptible to organized public pressure from fundamentalist religious groups and public relations campaigns such as Paul has outlined. Thus the case for the "scientific validity" of ID and/or "scientific creationism" is not being argued in the proper forum (i.e. the scientific literature) and the arguments presented for it are not those supporting its scientific validity, but rather, the same circular arguments of the 19th century that "design" implies a designer. A snowflake is complex and "designed" but does this prove there was a designer?

Bernard