Is ID contributing to science?
Is ID Making a Genuine Contribution to Science?This is the subtitle of a Dembski and Behe talk at the 2004 ID Symposium (Sept 24,25 - 2004). The talk isn't available, but it's conclusions likely differ from those of scientists.
Scientific databases show that ID and associated concepts are virtually absent from scientific literature. If ID were scientifically significant, one would expect not only scientific articles, but networks of articles that define fields and subfields of study. Thomas Woodward in Doubts about Darwin lauds Dembski and suggests that the explanatory filter is an important contribution to many fields. Again databases suggest that this to be an exaggeration.
The Discovery Institute, the prime supporter of ID, has nonscientific goals:The foremost thing is to demolish the Darwinist superstition. All our people can get along on that. What they don't agree on are the alternatives, such as the theory of design.
Bruce Chapman, President
The Discovery Institute is well financed by supporters with religious goals. The DI promotes the so-called wedge strategy to discredit modern science. One goal of the wedge is to publish in science journals. Failing in this the DI has adopted quote mining. This strategy is more subtle than earlier strategies of young Earth creationists, but equally unscientific.
The ID movement has contributed to apologetics. Their goal, however, is not contributing to science, but redefining science to fit their preconceptions.
Report on the ID symposium talk