Mind you, I didn't say it was based on theology, because it isn't necessarily so. It does provide an asylum ignorantiam.

I know a fair deal about it. Most of the material that is said to belong to ID-theory is no more than a collection of attacks on (neo-)darwinism. The latter, I would sooner consider a part of darwinistic science itself, since it is either non-constructive or a tool for adapting and evolving () the theory (that includes dealing with attacks of those who simply don't comprehend their target, along with arguments on mathematical grounds or involving physics). The former, I at least know enough about to fight the popular idea that it is 'theology' or 'ufo-fanatic'-material. For those looking to read some works from an ID proponent, you might want to give Behe a try.



As with politics, often the most vocal proponents - as well as opponents - seem to know the least. Their arguments are arguments of passion, fear or, as you say, arrogance. Those can all go on the bollocks-pile, as far as I'm concerned.
Like I said, I'm interested in any theory that works, and I believe no interference or normative actions are required to 'set science right'.
Bad theories have a tendency to be kept alive by fervent promoting, but they don't last forever. I don't know how everyone thinks about Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, or Lakatos' ideas of degenerative and progressive science, but I feel there's at least some truth in all them: not just anything can stay around for long at the frontlines.
Good science, whether dogmatic or not, delivers results. It provides a steady base for development of theory and it delivers a results (glow-in-the-dark corn and mices with ears on their backs aren't exactly the kind of things the average reader considers 'results', but they 'prove' a theory 'works', nonetheless).
ID comes up with a more pragmatic scientific system, in spite of its current status? Fine with me, bring on the new theories and results! If it stands half a fighting chance, it will grow. If not, it will probably become a cult item for small groups. There's even people around who believe in a flat earth, so if that ever turns out to be true 'again', we've got some folks ready to rumble.
I therefore do not share the fear of ID that some darwinists express. Nor do I share the fear of dogmatism in darwinistic science. Nor even what is taught in schools. Eventually people will look back  and chuckle about the silly ideas and endaevours of predecessors, no matter what they were, regardless of the fact that it got them 'there' eventually.

I stick to my stance on the 'escape to ignorance'. Anything that is dogmatically called a mystery or 'a thing we cannot ever hope to find out', is being banned from our quest for knowledge. Whether it is arrogance, fear or pride that causes people to try is not important to me. If one believes man is not meant to know certain things then one simply believes that the asylum is good - as it well might. I don't think it is, but each to his own. ;]

<--- Doesn't Doom wear a brown glove? :o

The topic is not so derailed as you think.  We're discussing incompetence in leadership, and the dangers of such.  The original context was recursiveness in legislation, but that's a subgroup of leadership concerns.  Oh, and Spawn:  

:rules:  

Only until we assimilate you into the collective, Tab.  Resistance is futile!  

Not particularly, pho has said much the same for years. He simply takes issue with people attacking his beliefs.

I fail to see what attacking any belief has to do with
Now, this slippy doesn't look too happy..  

Oh. Then I apoligize.

Say hello to your sister for me.