Yes, and it is cited to “Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). “Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience” (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Article available from Universiteit Gent”:
UNTIL ITS DRAMATIC legal defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence.
Also relevant are the following Wikipedia policies:
-
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia (Fringe theories and pseudoscience section)
-
Wikipedia:Fringe theories - Wikipedia (Spectrum of fringe theories section)
No. That would simply lead to a long, and completely unnecessary, digression – which seems to be your stock-in-trade for these discussions.