- Popular presentations of evolutionary ideologies are commonly digested and read as science. Take "selfish genes": an interpretation of facts or a useful way of looking at data is mistaken often for a fact in itself or "the truth" about the way genetics works.
- Science, in general popular discourse, being about "truth" - which it most certainly is not.
- Popular use of induction despite its formal invalidity. This will probably be left out, I just thought some Hume would be fun.
- The failure to produce ex ante mathematical models for speciation, or even particularly good ex post calculations. Suppose we had videographic evidence of the past 2 billion years and DNA samples from every organism as well as the abilities to process said information and realize that there were no deviations from statistically-predicted gene frequencies and what-not. What would the science of such a thing be? Predictive mathematical models, considerations of "convergence", all sorts of methods of analyzing fact using math. What would the popular account of evolution, however, be? All sorts of bosh about squeezing God out of all the gaps, "proving" the "truth" of evolution, dozens of conceptual frameworks a la "selfish genes" for interpreting the data. Which of the two do those advocating the teaching of evolution in schools rant more about? Hint: one of the two doesn't exist and would be way beyond the understanding of a high-schooler.
Actually, ID isn't. Some strands of it do make predictions. I think it's silly.
So I'll polish this up and expand for Monday. I hope it will be adequate and I will have to put an acknowledgment to Mr. Tkatchev at the end.
EDIT: more is needed on #1, particularly, the uncritical use of evolutionary theory [science] to build up naturalistic ideology [not science] in popular discourse [which is what eventually makes it into schools, since schools don't teach science].