Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has some interesting comments about the ID/Darwinism debate. He is not an ID proponent — he says he tends toward taking the word of the majority, in favor of Darwinism. But he notes:

The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?

Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”

Is that possible? I have no way of knowing.
But let me give you a little analogy.

And Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, who remains “deeply unimpressed with ‘Intelligent Design,'” admits:

But this NPR story on the harassment, firing, and intimidation of scientists and academics who support intelligent design, or even seem like they might, is pretty appalling. (More accurately, the story is very good, but what it reports is appalling). This is pretty much scientific McCarthyism, and it ought to be stopped.

Listen to the story, and read this letter from the Office of Special Counsel on the Smithsonian Institution’s behavior in a particularly disgraceful episode.

(Thanks to Paul, Patrick, and the Headmistress for making sure we saw these.)