Lord J-Bar has a post called Intelligent Design Is Actually Quite Clever (from a PR Standpoint) (see what reading PA prevents you from missing? ), whose reading I recommend, and which probably deserves a printout to give to any friend of yours who believes that “there may be something to that ID thing “.

Some excerpts:

Since most of the public has no idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable, ID advocates can push a “theory” that is impossible to falsify, and the public accepts it out of a lack of knowledge. When actual scientists or people who understand science speak out, IDists turn around paint themselves as victims of scientific dogma, saying that science is a religion that refuses to allow new ideas and will never let go of its evolution “myth.”

and:

Finally, Americans like to encourage free and open discussion. It’s an essential part of our culture. When ID advocates pop up demanding equal time and debate, Americans feel inclined to support that debate, regardless of the fact that no actual debate exists within the scientific community. Now, I’m all for freedom of thoughts and discussion, but that debate should not occur in a high school classroom. If we were to let every fringe idea that comes up have “equal time” in science classrooms, then schools had better include ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Hindu creation myth in their curriculums.

What am I getting at? Even though most scientists scoff at those who support ID, we need to realize that ID advocates have actually been extremely clever. They’ve done an excellent job disguising the scientific shortcomings of ID by relying on public ignorance. Furthermore, they appeal to Americans’ sense of freedom and equal opportunity to demand equal time in science classrooms. Since most people are confused about the nature of ID, it sounds like a reasonable demand. Plus, the straight-up lies that IDists tell by claiming that there’s a debate within science over the validity of evolution certainly helps their case. To the average layperson, it might sound like evolution is not accepted just because a few people with science PhDs, regardless of whether or not they are biologists, speak out against evolution.

That is, indeed, a tactic I’ve seen used on the web. IDists present their creationism as an “alternate theory”, using some big, scientific-sounding words, and not mentioning God too obviously… and when scientists, naturally, say “that’s bullshit”, they turn to the people and say “see, it’s just dogma! They worship evolution like a religion, and are too closed-minded to consider alternatives! But don’t YOU want both sides of the story?” People, naturally, say yes.

IDers cleverly make use of a common fallacy: that, between two opposite positions, the truth is probably in the middle. As Dawkins (I believe) said, that’s not always the case – sometimes, one side is simply wrong. If you say that 2+2=4 and I say it’s 5, the answer isn’t 4.5, but still 4. There’s no “evolution debate” among biologists; the amount of evidence is large enough so that anyone who managed to disprove evolution would have a huge amount of explaining to do. In other words, there is a lot of evidence for evolution, and zero for creationism. In yet other words (as J-Bar suggests), if all you have to do for people to consider your side as “equally valid” is present an “alternate theory”, never mind the evidence, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally deserving of mention…