:(In reply to Scjessy) I would have to disagree with that. I don't know when's the last time I've seen any article in the MSM that in any way supported ID or questioned evolution. At most, there's occasionally articles mentioning silly things IDers and creationists are doing. And there's like 2? biologists who are known for actively support ID. AFAIK both of them always supported ID, in fact they got their PhDs partially to give them legitimacy. And most people ignore them because, well I can't say because it would violate BLP. However I see articles all the time which question various aspects of AGW. There's probably at least 15 climate scientists I can think off-hand who are known for questioning various aspects of AGW. And they at least get some respect from the media (some may say get too much respect) perhaps because many of them were resonably respected scientists before they started to question various aspects of AGW. Also in NZ for example, as I expect in a number of countries, for a mainstream politician to in some way suggest they support ID or express scepticism of evolution is likely to be political suicide. However several politicans have express scepticism of AGW and they're doing fine. Heck as mentioned in John Key as recently as 2005, our now PM expressed scepticism. I'm pretty sure polling will show similar trends. (From a quick search, I've seen figures that show 75% in NZ believe evolution is true , yet this perhaps fairly poorly worded poll  suggests nearly half doubt AGW. And before you laught at NZ, I strongly expect similar results in many European countries and probably Canada too.) None of this means they are any more right, but the idea intelligent design has "has substantial support and orders of magnitude more mainstream media coverage" is IMHO clearly false. At least outside the US. Americans seem to really like ID for whatever reason so perhaps it's true there. (Of course they also like denying AGW so I'm not convinced it's really true there either.) Note I did say 'questioning various aspects of AGW'. One of the problems is that people tend to conflate everyone who questions any aspect of AGW as part of some unified denialist movement. This is clearly nonsense, while current science suggests all of these people are wrong, they hold disparate views and to lump them together into one does a disservice to the reader and almost definitely just increases the support for the denialist view.