Wow.
I won’t pursue the tangent of evaluating that comparison.
(1) I would say that the ID paradigm has registered quite significantly on “the popular level radar” because there are apparently millions of Christians (among others) who are very warm to it.
(2) I’m curious as to how that particular new paradigm was misunderstood.
I have. Many times. And I was indeed surprised—because I got no response.
As I’ve explained, I’m fine with “ID theory” as philosophy. I’ve just never seen anyone even attempt to rigorously define any sort of scientific theory of ID. (Everything is generalities and examples without rigorous hypotheses and falsification testing, the very hallmark of real science.)
Do you consider the “muster” criteria I am applying to be unfair or arbitrary or unconventional? Why shouldn’t a proposed “ID theory” as a compelling scientific concept have to pass the same muster as all other valid science? Do you believe that the many Christian evangelicals in the sciences who have criticized and reject ID as science (e.g., Francis Collins, Ken Miller, et al) are all being unfair?