Having been in the scientific herbal research industry for over 11 years now, I know very well that research and information differs in the scientific community on many levels.

First, it can differ between the scientists and the political interface to the scientists. A perfect example of this is the FDA. The scientists attempt to tell the truth but they are muted by the political arm of the corrupt organization:

See:

FDA scientists revolt against corrupt bosses

This also is business-as-usual for nearly all of the major health organizations. For documentation, see:

See Mercury, Autism & The Global Vaccine Agenda

It is fantastically naive to blindly believe whatever you're told. It does not matter how large or powerful organizations are. They have the potential to be as corrupt as any man can be. This is a hard lesson that huge numbers of people have finally started learning in the recent past.

So, the perception of "scientific acceptance" you speak of is flawed at its very core.



You know nothing about ID.

Please prove me wrong by sharing something profound about it.



How can you remark about the validity of a subject (ID) when you know nothing profound about it.

Let me end with this:

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein