I Find Your Lack of Faith in Darwinism Disturbing…

Consequently, ID advocates, assuming the mantle of creationism in the 21st century (whether they wish to do that or not) do not propose research projects. They do not compete for National Science Foundation research grants. They do not compete for National Institute of Health research positions or outside research grants. Instead they get their political allies to propose amendments to claim scientific integrity, integrity they have not earned in the laboratory or in the field.

As Judge Overton noted in the decision in McLean v. Arkansas, all that is necessary to get into high school textbooks is to do research and publish it. Instead, ID advocates campaign in churches claiming political oppression, and asking support to lobby school boards and legislatures to get laws passed granting them by fiat what they cannot earn in research.

No scientist fears competition from good ideas and hard-working, honest researchers. Scientists rightly are concerned that intelligent design does not appear to be that sort of competition.

Why do ID advocates lack the faith in their ideas so much that they won't even test them in a lab?

As far as I've been able to tell the approach of ID is not bad, just superficial.

From the dictionary:

su·per·fi·cial (spr-fshl)adj.
1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface.
2. Not thorough.

I agree, but then when it comes to explorations of ultimate reality aren't they all superficial? Surely you, as a physicist, would agree that all fundamental scientific theories can't claim to be more than superficial.

Faced with that it seems to me there are two options:
1. Remain eternally agnostic.
2. Do the best one can and make an actionable choice that informs one's sense of self and the cosmos.

MJ

You're right, the selection pressures are already being applied. But it is true of every new paradigm that the establishment tries to "select out" something that challenges its place. If there is so little merit to the new paradigm it probably will get dropped even before it gets off the ground. That is part of the selection process. Judging from the continuing growth of ID friendly scientists, philosophers, etc. and even Nobel Laureates, ID does have the merit to survive these early pressures. Remember this is a new approach to science. As ID proponents admit, it is still in its infancy and has its challenges. Only time will tell if it can be productive enough to survive what will, no doubt, be continued pressures against it.

Krauz wrote:

If a design orientation is such a vacuous approach that will truncate real progress, how long will those who adopt it survive the brutal selection pressures. Surely Darwinists who have a little faith should rest easy that scientific IDers will quickly disappear from the scientific arena, just one more failed fossil on the selection heap.

Some might argue that is happening right now, and this is precisely why ID has gotten nowhere in the scientific community. The philosophical, mathematical, and biological claims have each been assessed by the relevant experts, and always come up severely lacking. Somebody on this blog should really review "Why Intelligent Design Fails", the mainstream ID movement seems to be trying to ignore it completely.

Ratzsch makes the same observation in this review of Pennock's Intelligent Design Creationists [sic] and Their Critics:

"Of course, it might be that removing methodological naturalist restrictions would prove empirically unfruitful, for various reasons. … Historically, of course, no such thing happened. Indeed, if the history told by critics of ID is accurate, previously entrenched supernatural explanations lost the scientific battle to mere fledgling naturalistic explanations in the 19th century - hardly what one would expect if merely allowing currently disenfranchised supernatural explanations into the discussion were likely to destroy current mature science."