Evolution to ID, impact on the sciences.

[Blui]

There is a growing fear that the teaching of ID will negatively impact on the prevalence of the theory of evolution as being correct.

However i think, (in terms of supply and demand) as long as there is a Demand for Evolution moreso than ID, then evolution will always be prominent.

Now this demand will primarily be generated by those 'paths' that require evolution.

I think only IF ID can overtake Evolution in Demand, will it ever become prominent.

Thus i would like to know, if anyone can answer, how changing to ID would impact other science pathways, in particular, medicine (if it will at all).

[Plognark]

Look up a schmuck named Lysenko (http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html).

It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.

Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko's methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin's death.

[Machiavelli]

I don't fear that ID will eclipse evolution simply because evolution has some truth on it's side. My objections to ID is that it is a lie to present something like that as science. I think it's morally reprehensable to perpetuate it by inducting children into that thinking during their formative years.

[Dhaeron]

Thus i would like to know, if anyone can answer, how changing to ID would impact other science pathways, in particular, medicine (if it will at all).
ID has nothing to offer in terms of science. There is no ID theory, ID does not allow any meaningful predictions and has no explanatory power. ID is really only saying "goddidit, now shut up."
That is exactly the reason to be concerned about it though. ID is stealth creationism, invented to get it into schools to raise doubt about valid science, and indoctrinate children.

[Haener]

<snip>
However i think, (in terms of supply and demand) as long as there is a Demand for Evolution moreso than ID, then evolution will always be prominent.

Now this demand will primarily be generated by those 'paths' that require evolution.

I think only IF ID can overtake Evolution in Demand, will it ever become prominent.

Thus i would like to know, if anyone can answer, how changing to ID would impact other science pathways, in particular, medicine (if it will at all).
I'm not sure I can follow your demand/supply analogy. I don't think market forces or models are appropiate in analysing the merits of scientific theories. (Of course, ID isn't scientific).

As for impacting other sciences, teaching ID as if it were science harms the understanding of the scientific method in general. The consequences on other specific sciences can be far worse than that. Nice of you to bring up medicine. A big issue these days is germs developing resistance against drugs. In other words, their natural habitat is favoring those germs with the best resistance to drugs we use. Understanding and pro-actively working against this process is not possible without an understanding of the theory of evolution.