A discussion here on the much-hyped but now ignored (except by creationist propagandists) 2016 meeting by the British Royal Society “New Trends in Biological Evolution” was just closed. In this discussion it was pointed out why this conference has failed to produce any effect on how scientists understand evolutionary theory: Pretty well all of the ideas that were presented there as being revolutionary new breakthroughs that would lead to a paradigm shift in biology turned out to be old ideas that had already been incorporated into orthodox evolutionary theory for years if not decades.
In response to this, one of the defenders of ID Creationism, @Eddie, offered the following arguments:
I made no personal or professional attack on Futuyma. In fact, I’m predisposed to like Futuyma, because he reads lots of books on evolutionary theory. Most of the people here appear to have read nothing but articles on it.
And later he writes:
And how many of the people bellyaching here have read any of (the papers from the conference that were published online)? And are the discussions on the floor also found online? And how about all the private side-discussions that inevitably occur and conferences like that? Are they online, too?
Is this how ID creationists think science is practiced? Do they think a proper understanding of the most up to date findings is obtained by reading books, and not articles in the peer-reviewed press? Is the essential data declared during questions from the floor during meetings, or muttered in secret in the hallways and restrooms at scientific meetings, never again to see the light of day?
If so, it might explain why ID Creationism has so utterly failed as a scientific enterprise: Its proponents and apologists do not understand how science is actually practiced in the modern world.