The fact that large number papers that are published are wrong is crucial to the scientific process: People make claims, they are put into a public forum, and people try to replicate them or disprove them. If a majority of scientific papers weren't demonstrably wrong I would be very worried about what we were missing.
The problem I see with the intelligent design advocates is that while they are desparate to hold up their theory as a scientific alternative, they refuse to place it into this same, demanding forum.
Scientific theories gain acceptance not because they are generated by scientists, but because they are put into an open discussion where hundreds or thousands of people want to make their name by discrediting them and can't. Intelligent design as an 'alternative theory' has never stood up to these critiques, and when people suggest it the intelligent design advocates claim they are being unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that large number papers that are published are wrong is crucial to the scientific process: People make claims, they are put into a public forum, and people try to replicate them or disprove them. If a majority of scientific papers weren't demonstrably wrong I would be very worried about what we were missing.
The problem I see with the intelligent design advocates is that while they are desparate to hold up their theory as a scientific alternative, they refuse to place it into this same, demanding forum.
Scientific theories gain acceptance not because they are generated by scientists, but because they are put into an open discussion where hundreds or thousands of people want to make their name by discrediting them and can't. Intelligent design as an 'alternative theory' has never stood up to these critiques, and when people suggest it the intelligent design advocates claim they are being unfair.