Behind all the "consensus" controls lie groups of individuals that benefit greatly by hyped priorities--research institutions, especially, including cash-pressed universities in search of federal money. Include trial attorneys who benefit from public fright. Add in, then, the para-political elements in society that want government sanction to run the lives of other people; this includes a large part of the environmental movement, plus the cultural totalitarians who seek government power to implement their social and spending policies. Also include the bureaucracies of government that seek constantly to expand their writ...and staffing levels. Economist Thomas Sowell has termed the alliance "coercive utopians."
To stand up to these trends and strategems is "pro-science", not "anti-science", despite what the consensus mongers contend. If "science" is essentially a propaganda and social scheme looking for complaint, vendable professionals to support it, then over time it will lose its hold on public respect. And that is just what is happening."
And that is just what is happening. Didnt Darwin have a minority viewpoint when his ideas were first proposed? I cannot understand for the life of me that if Intelligent Design arguments have been so thoroughly debunked as some say, then why not debate the subject in public forums where detractors can openly point out any perceived errors in their theories? If I had to speculate, I think it would be because some people cannot deal with the idea that an intelligent designer might have began everything and if that's the case, they would seriously have to reexamine their thinking on a whole host of other issues (Moral, metaphysical, etc) and they are comfortable where they are right now, wrapped up snugly in their own biases and preconceived notions.