No-win for science (Score 1)

The whole argument is a no-win situation for scientists. They are presented with an insidious counter argument to the theory of evolution, and can respond in one of two ways.

1.) Ignore it based on the fact that it does not follow the proper rules for discussion ( i.e. it isn't, and can never be, a scientific theory ) - The opposing side can then paint them as arrogant and anti religious ( and nazis apparently ).

2.) Bend to public pressure and discuss it in the same forum as those hypothesis that do follow the proper rules for discussion - An "alternate faction" with no ties whatsoever to the first ( sarcasm intended ) can claim that science compromises its neutrality and is biased by public pressure and opinion, thus bringing into question all of the scientific discoveries...ever; undermining the hardearned respect science has garnered over the past however many years.

I think that scientists have correctly determined that if they lend ID any amount of weight in a scientific discussion they are slitting their own wrists. Unfortunately the leaders of the opposition are very good at spin. Since the majority of the individuals that make up the opposing group don't like to think about anything longer then it takes their leaders to tell them what to believe, they will never understand that science will never and can never enter in to a scientific discussion of ID without invalidating itself. Without that realization its very easy for an individual to be convinced that scientists are 'arrogant' ( and apparently nazis? ).

Some of the blame for the current state of this situation is to be laid at science's figurative feet. The representatives of science are not very good at PR, and often take the stance that if someone is too stupid to understand something after having it clearly explained to them, then its not the scientists problem. Its easy to paint someone as arrogant when they often are. They need to do a better job of responding to the criticism with explanations of how important their guidelines are, and how compromising them leads to fundamental cracks in the only thing they consider inviolate, their integrity.