The Rock Stars of Physics are the String Theorists. Highly feted and recruited at the best Universities, Superstring theorists are the ones that posit that we are but one of an infinite number of universes each with their own physics. As per an article about them in the NYT (Dec. 7, 2004, p. F1), "... string theorists admit that after 20 years, they still do not know how to test string theory".
Where is the public outcry against teaching String Theory in publicly-funded schools?
The case against "Intelligent Design" is that it is NOT science because it cannot be tested. I am NOT a creationist, but Intelligent Design to me does seem like a testable idea.
In essence, are highly ordered complex systems with sophisticated subsystems that do not apparently have workable antecedents that merely needed to be optimized, but had to be developed in toto to work at all, be created by external natural "dumb" stimuli is not a question that should wholly be discarded out of hand.
To do so and to write it off as religious superstition seems to me an over-reaction by those folks that just hate religion. In short, I mean I would not be surpised or flabbergasted if we were to discover that there were other forces that play a profound effect on our physical world and its development. String Theory is an Idea that does not violate mathematical boundary conditions that we can measure in that it uses the intellectually lazy concept of infinity... all things are possible, even likely, with infinite variables, except, apparently, the concept that some sort of intelligent force is at work in a finite universe. Which seems more ludicrous?
There is a clear double standard here.
Science does poorly defining ontological issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology), and efforts to minimize ontological issues as worthless because they do not lend themselves to a science-based definition is intellectually weak.