science ? democracy

Panda Thumber Jason Rosenhouse tackles a challenge by Southwest Daily Times writer George Deipenbrock, who was seeking a “good argument” on why “teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the [Kansas] education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.”
Rosenhouse deconstructs the ‘balance’ assumption/paradigm that Deipenbrock seeks well enough, but later in the response hits the nail cleaner than I’ve ever seen it hit when he says:

The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in science classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed by a handul of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case, however, did the adherents of the heresy earn their place in the curriculum by appealing directly to schools boards and state legislatures. In every case the heresy won out by producing evidence adequate to convince a large majority of scientists.

As I related in the comments on his site – Here we have a dubious majority (in some cases) who have deemed themselves privileged to contravene a process (scientific method) that has historically acted as the ruling principle for the procedure by which theories are accepted. The selection process is ingrained in the nature of scientific method itself. If we do away with that procedure, we do away with scientific method. The ID propenents invite a “scientific acceptance by majority” proposition that is truly dangerous.