Un bon résumé sur l'historique et les réalisations du mouvement Intelligent Design est disponible sur cette page. Les auteurs insistent sur le fait que la caution scientifique recherchée par l'ID n'est qu'un déguisement servant à masquer le caractère religieux.

La stérilité scientifique du mouvement est mise en évidence par le nombre de réalisation scientifiquement valides: [rien].

A ce propos, on lit notamment:
"Less whimsically, during the controversy over the Ohio science education standards, researchers at the University of Cincinnati's Internet Public Opinion Laboratory conducted a poll of science professors at four-year public and private colleges in Ohio. Of the 460 respondents, 90 percent said that there was no scientific evidence at all for intelligent design; 93 percent said that they were unaware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an [alternative] scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"; and a nearly unanimous 97 percent said that they did not use intelligent design in their own research. Included among those surveyed were faculty at such fundamentalist schools as Cedarville University, which accepts a statement of faith according to which "by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." If the pollsters had excluded professors with such a dogmatic commitment to biblical inerrancy, the results would have been even closer to unanimity"

Pas étonnant que Julien ait autant de difficulté à référer à un seul travail réalisé dans cadre créationnisto-IDéiste qui soit considéré comme valide. La "science créationniste" fonctionne en autarcie... comme toutes les pseudo-sciences, d'ailleurs.

Jean-François