Are scientists dogmatic?
Are scientists dogmatic?
The improver of natural science absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Thomas Henry Huxley
Phillip Johnson accuses scientists of dogmatism based on their to refusal to accept supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. The Discovery Institute and Johnson suggest that naturalism causes most of society's evils. The wedge document implies that religion led to democracy, free enterprise, human rights, etc. It overlooks the historical context (the enlightenment). It accuses Darwin of destroying religion by promoting naturalism.

Naturalism, the notion that natural phenomena have natural causes, precedes Darwin. There's no evidence that it caused any of the supposed misfortunes. Newton accommodated much of the physical world to naturalism. By first decade of the 19th century chemistry was naturalistic. Two decades later Charles Lyell launched geology into the realm of naturalism. Only in the 20th century did vitalism, the last vestige of supernaturalism, disappear from biology.

Vitalism was not disproved, but was recognized as a sterile hypothesis. Intelligent design (ID) is likewise a sterile hypothesis. As such scientists exclude it as "fringe science".

"Regular press coverage on developments in design theory" was a five year goal of the wedge. We've yet to see ID progress. Early on the Discovery Institute funded laboratory research fellowships. These fellowships apparently produced no "developments". More recently it has funded the Biologic Institute. It's unclear if Discovery Institute fellows recognize why ID research has been fruitless.

Science is analytical, not descriptive. ID, like UFOs, has no analytical value. Accusing scientists of dogmatism is a standard pseudoscience tactic (item 2 of Robert Park's Voodoo Science).