And it has worked both ways though, hasn't it? E.g., Dr. Dembski has described his method as an extension or further refinement of Fisherian statistics. I am not "professionally" qualified to evaluate what Dr. Dembski has described as his contribution. I do know however that the very subject of statistical methods is the source of endless controversy amongst scientists and mathematicians, and probably everyone and his dog Rover has made their own contributions (to the haze if not the light). I have yet to see anyone (qualified to) evaluate the method itself, purely on the grounds of its methodological merits, its utility and effectiveness. Everyone seems to assume (mostly because it has seemed convenient to do so, for the sake of argumentation) that the method is derived from the conclusion, and therefore any "methodological" issues are false and obfuscating. Creationists are almost neuropathologically inclined to reach the wrong conclusions and we don't need to very closely examine how they reach those conclusions. We know they are wrong regardless because we are "purely objective." LOL

So what? Why should we? What's the point? Creationists (like everyone else) can invent "methods" to support their a priori conclusions or beliefs. And of course, that is exactly why we, scientists, require some evaluation of methods independently of the theoretical conclusions derived from employing them. (Which is not to say that methods are theoretically-neutral.)

We seem to quite happy with our conclusion that Dembski's conclusion is false regardless of any method.

If there is no method to effectively detect design where it was not previously thought to exist then everyone's "metaphysical" baggage weighs the same.

So that we can read the quotation in its context, where exactly did Behe say this?

"ID obviously comes with its own social/philosophical baggage that must be cut loose if it is ever to become a science. The arguments of Behe and Dembski have taken the first steps in cutting away design from such baggage, but unfortunately, the political activity put it right back. As long as ID proponents keep attaching ID to socio-political agendas, it will never develop into a science." "“ Mike Gene

Glad to see Mike Gene is still applying his sociological imagination to 'the controversy' over ID. This displays a type of triangular logic at its best and freshest, since the topic is so hot in America these days. Connections with "˜telic thinking' are however, not explicitly evident (steps forward and back?).

The sociological relevance Mike suggests I take to mean this: it is the environment/society (directly or indirectly) acting on scientists, philosophers and theologians that ultimately determines the content of theories, methods, and ID 'developing into a science,' not the individuals themselves.

Drs. Behe and Dembski try to be 'purely objective,' i.e. scientifically (innocent) detached from the baggage and agendas by 'just doing' science, mathematics and statistical philosophy. Yet in so doing, they choose concepts from natural theology (first from Paley and more recently to contradict/mock Dawkins), religious apologetics (i.e. argument from design), invoke the 'information age,' molecular machines, irreducibility (far older than bio-chem), the science and theology discourse and voila! "“ there is a(nother) controversy over origins in America.

Mike's paragraph and my sociological imagination lead to a basic question about ID, also since Dr. Behe wrote that "intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all humane studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more." (1999) The question is as follows:

Since "˜social/philosophical baggage' and "˜socio-political agendas' are counter-productive to the "˜development of ID into a science,' one may be led to wonder, should ID ever be spoken about in fields like anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics or political science? Michael Ruse [topic of this thread] is a philosopher, so perhaps there is a place for ID there. But surely not in social sciences and humanities?

On topic since the topic of 'progress' and 'progressivism' came up…?

And to be fair
The Romantic Conception of Robert J. Richards by Michael Ruse
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/Reviews/Ruse%20on%20Richards.pdf
Journal of the History of Biology, Volume 37, Number 1, 2004, pp. 3-23(21)

I'm no expert, but I would say that Fisher/Wright, and their disciples, came up with good science that allowed evolution to steer clear of the progressivist philosophy that had long been coupled to it. I'm sure that eugenics/Nazism had an impact also, especially when the Modern Synthesis was being hashed out in America and Britain. Unfortunately, Ruse doesn't give much attention to the eugenics movement. His argument is that the progressivist philosophy had so thoroughly tainted, and thus thwarted, evolution for so long that many scientists deliberately cut it away.

As SageRoss points out, the parallels between this and the ID movement are striking.
ID obviously comes with its own social/philosophical baggage that must be cut loose if it is ever to become a science. The arguments of Behe and Dembski have taken the first steps in cutting away design from such baggage, but unfortunately, the political activity put it right back. As long as ID proponents keep attaching ID to socio-political agendas, it will never develop into a science.

But even though the cynic can view their arguments as a Trojan horse, it is the direction to go. In fact, one reason some of the more clever critics may insist on the Trojan horse argument is that they know if ID is cut away from the baggage, its chances of becoming a science become much greater. This is why, for some, there will always be Trojan horses all the way down. The Trojan Horse accusation is a way to keep any idea attached to its baggage. That's why I mentioned it was a good thing for science that there were no blogs back in the 50s.

Thanks for writing up that nice review. Yes, the section on Huxley was indeed quite interesting. Let me provide another excerpt from Ruse:

Fascinating (and very revealing) is the fact that Huxley, the arch-evolutionist, taught virtually no evolution to his own students. He was a brilliant teacher, whose lectures spread over two years and required over a hundred and fifty classes (not to mention practica where one dissected specimens). Yet during this course, which was a marvel of detail and instruction, evolution was lucky to get half a lecture, and natural selection five minutes! This fact amazed not a few students themselves. "One day when I was talking to him, our conversations turned upon evolution. "˜There is one thing about you I cannot understand,' I said, "˜and I should like a word in explanation. For several months now I have been attending your course, and I have never heard you mention evolution, while in your public lectures everywhere you openly proclaim yourself an evolutionist." The answer is that evolution just did not fit into Huxley's vision of science education. In class he had time "to put facts fully before a trained audience. In my public lectures I am obliged to pass rapidly over the facts, and I put forward my personal convictions."

You also note the following:

Ruse also claims that for many evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins and E. O. Wilson, "evolutionism entail[s] its own brand of postmillennial theology."

Yes, you can clearly see the progressivist philosophy/values in E.O. Wilson's vision. But Dawkins militant atheism is also of the same mind "“ in Dawkins world, using science/evolution to eliminate religion is progress.

http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-evolution-creation-struggle.html

In short, it's definitely a good one to plug, especially right now with all the abuse of history going on in the wake of the Dover trial.