That's not what the article in the OP is really talking about... it discusses the actions of a bunch of people at a conference, nothing more. It said nothing about their actual methods, merely implied that those individuals can't handle contradiction well.

The people aren't the process. Making that distinction is what got us from the all-powerful reliance on Authority in the classical period, to actual science.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

On the contrary, the "action of people at a conference" is part of their method, so it says a great deal about their method! Conferences expose key aspects of the process whereby a community reaches the conclusions it reaches. That is certainly true in real science, and I have no doubt it also holds in ID circles. Wouldn't you think?So, science was done by people in the classical period, whereas today it is done by...? I can agree that independent confirmation is a crucial piece of modern science, but what constitutes confirmation is very much at issue here, and watching how the people act in the conference environment speaks volumes about what passes for independent confirmation in any given community. If the people are unwilling to conduct open debate about the issues requiring independent confirmation, I'd say that's a pretty clear sign that standards of confirmation are quite weakly applied.

Actually, you got my intent backwards, I was referring to what was accepted as fact, and why. It wasn't about who actually did the science then, as much as whose name it was attributed to. The word of an Authority trumped actual experimental data for a very long time.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I agree with that part, and the fact that experimental data has now taken a more important role in real science (though there remain some areas of mainstream science where data is lacking and authority continues to rule). But the ID community is still fully in the old model, as there is no experimental data, just argument by those who are considered the leaders. As such, it remains relevant, in that community, the conduct and mode of inquiry of the people-- as that is all that exists. Indeed, the only experimental data directly referred to from that meeting was data that supported evolution, and the conduct of the people was apparently to avoid discussion of that fact.

You're still discussing the (inferred) method, not the people. Any individuals who follow the same slipshod methodology would get misleading results.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Right, the methods exposed at that conference, if we are to believe they are reported faithfully, are likely to result in slipshod results, that was the claim. The slipshod result is ID.

I think the real problem many people (not only IDers) have with evolution is the time scales.
It's just difficult to get your head around what that really means:
a million years.
a billion years.

Give any of us a couple of billion years, though,
and I'm sure we can come up with something way better than what natural evolution has managed.

A billion years? Give me that long, and... heck, just give me that long.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort