Is Intelligent Design dead?

[Uncle Rhynchus]

According to The Wedge Strategy, a document produced by the ID think tank, The Discovery Institute, intelligent design was supposed to "overthrow...materialism and its cultural legacies...,reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The two primary goals of ID were:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

To accomplish these goals, ID advocates listed a number of objectives, including:

1, A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

• An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

• Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

• Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
  Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

Through these, ID advocates stated that in 5 years, their aim was:

• to see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

This document first appeared in 1999. Obviously the Discovery Institute has not achieved their goals or their objectives. Further, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover federal court case put ID on trial as a science, and the verdict was unambiguous; ID is not a science, but is a religiously-motivated offspring of creationism.

Currently, ID advocates have been publicly stating they do not want ID taught in public school science classes, and instead are focusing their efforts on "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" curriculum changes.

Additionally, unless I missed something, ID still has yet to provide a mechanism, nor has it explained the origin of a single biological phenomenon. Even worse, ID advocates have not provided a useful means to identify things that are designed.

Viewing this as a whole, it's my opinion that ID is essentially "dead". It is politically dead due to the lack of advocates pushing for it to be included in public school curricula. It is scientifically dead because it hasn't made even the slightest bit of progress on any front in over a decade.

That's not to say that its advocates have given up...far from it. The creationists behind ID have simply moved on to their next strategy ("strengths and weaknesses of evolution"), just as they moved to ID following the defeat of scientific creationism (or creation science) after their defeat in federal courts.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, and if so, can anyone show me signs that ID is still "alive"?

[Questatement]

If nothing else, the ID movement has revealed the level of intolerance within naturalistic science and its institutions (grants, government, schools, academia, etc). Not only to challenges, but even to simple and honest inquiry.

Similar to Galelio's support of Copernicanism, many movements "die-out" or have to reposition when the opposition holds majority power and seeing that the Neo-Darwinian, ideological fortress is presently near-unpenetratable, I applaud any efforts to break down its walls and return to open inquiry and discussion within opposing camps.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: Questatement If nothing else, the ID movement has revealed the level of intolerance within naturalistic science and its institutions (grants, government, schools, academia, etc). Not only to challenges, but even to simple and honest inquiry.

That's correct; science is intolerant towards psuedoscience. ID never was "simple and honest inquiry", as the Wedge Document shows.

Similar to Galelio's support of Copernicanism, many movements "die-out" or have to reposition when the opposition holds majority power and seeing that the Neo-Darwinian, ideological fortress is presently near-unpenetratable, I applaud any efforts to break down its walls and return to open inquiry and discussion within opposing camps.

Are you conceding that ID is indeed dead?

[Meleagar]

Well, outside of a number of new books out on ID, videos, a robust debate and lecture circuit, a lab, and a rising level of acceptance in the public concerning ID ...

[Meleagar]

Signature in the Cell, the latest ID book, at Amazon.com:

#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
#2 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Astronomy > Cosmology
#2 in Books > Science > Astronomy > Cosmology

[Angry Citizen]

Quest, you seem to misunderstand science. In nearly all cases, new science is rejected immediately. New hypotheses are ripped to shreds. The proponents go back to the drawing board and respond to the objections, often find the holes, then come back with the patched up hypothesis.

Hypotheses come about by the need to explain certain phenomena in nature through some mechanism, often yielding an explanation. The theory of evolution explains that the multitude of creatures came about through millions upon millions of years of cosmic ray bombardment creating mutations which either flourished or died out due to the new mutation's increased or decreased ability to survive its environment. This theory explained how it worked and explained the vast amounts of fossil evidence to suggest that some creatures no longer exist. It only became a theory by fighting for a very long time about it, patching the holes and eventually overcoming scepticism by people who think a millennia old book can tell them everything - a challenge of epic proportions.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the only explanation given by Intelligent Design is that Goddidit. How is science advanced by this silly hypothesis? All our work with gene therapy and retroviral medicine and genetic engineering would go up in smoke because apparently the only thing that can create new life is God. That is false.

Since there is no evidence for intelligent design, and since the holes in intelligent design cannot be patched up due to its intrinsically flawed nature, how is their reaction any more 'intolerant' than towards the vast amount of other hypotheses?

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Well, outside of a number of new books out on ID, videos

That also applies to biblical creationism, bigfoot investigation, and the like.

a robust debate

Where? Between whom?

a lab

And this lab is conducting research into ID? If so, where can I see their results?

and a rising level of acceptance in the public concerning ID

Any support for this claim?

[barts]

In my view, I don't think Intelligent Design is dead. ID is a religious product for which there is, and always will be, a ready market. As long as money can be made selling it, it will prevail. Like all religious products, new models will be manufactured as the old ones go out of fashion or are shown to be defective.

I do think God may be, if not on life support, certainly injured. That's why ID has some attractiveness. It's a way of giving gods the imprimatur of science. Science being demonstrably more credible, and certainly more practically useful than any deity. You can't pray your way to the moon or to a cure for melanoma. ID is a form of religious Westernization: the new and improved religion.

Religions evolve like living organisms. Thousands of mutations appear, and those that are better adapted to the environment prevail. ID is one of those mutations and it is well-adapted for the Western, secular environment because it pretends to be science. For those with faith who are scientifically illiterate, ID is likely very attractive. In America, most people have faith and most are scientifically illiterate. That's a big market.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

In my view, I don't think Intelligent Design is dead. ID is a religious product for which there is, and always will be, a ready market.

In that context, I agree. ID is a subcategory of creationism, and creationism will be a social force in the US for quite some time. I tried to make that clear in the OP.

But ID itself doesn't seem to be of much consequence any more. The Discovery Institute isn't pushing for it to be in schools (and are actually publicly saying they don't want it in schools) and it isn't generating any useful science (it never really did).

So on what front is ID still alive? (And I mean ID specifically, not creationism as a whole)

[Questatement]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Since there is no evidence for intelligent design, and since the holes in intelligent design cannot be patched up due to its intrinsically flawed nature, how is their reaction any more 'intolerant' than towards the vast amount of other hypotheses?

It seems you're smarter than Einstein now.

*bows in humility*

[barts]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus So on what front is ID still alive? (And I mean ID specifically, not creationism as a whole)

ID is certainly not thriving. I just checked Google Trends, and as you can see with the exception of a peak of activity between mid-2005 and mid-2006, not much has occurred. Indeed, I compared Intelligent Design and Alchemy. There's more interest in Alchemy.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus That's correct; science is intolerant towards psuedoscience. ID never was "simple and honest inquiry", as the Wedge Document shows.

The Wedge document, as I read it, largely promotes inquiry and debate. Is there something in it that seems sneaky or deceptive to you?

Also, I believe the facts show an alternate side of the intolerance story.

Richard Sternberg has done an excellent job chronicling his case, including final reports following investigations from three separate governmental institutions

Smithsonian Controversy

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Quote by: Questatement The Wedge document, as I read it, largely promotes inquiry and debate. Is there something in it that seems sneaky or deceptive to you?

The Wedge Document doesn't make it clear to you that ID is a religiously-motivated social movement disguised as science?

Also, I believe the facts show an alternate side of the intolerance story. Richard Sternberg has done an excellent job chronicling his case, including final reports following investigations from three separate governmental institutions Smithsonian Controversy

So exactly how was Sternberg discriminated against or persecuted? He kept his unpaid position at the SMNH, he maintained full access to specimens and office space...so what happened that was such a big deal?

[Questatement]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus The Wedge Document doesn't make it clear to you that ID is a religiously-motivated social movement disguised as science?

It's perfectly upfront about its philosophical assumptions... something I can't say for naturalistic science.

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus So exactly how was Sternberg discriminated against or persecuted? He kept his unpaid position at the SMNH, he maintained full access to specimens and office space...so what happened that was such a big deal?

Don't you believe in reading links?

• There were efforts to remove me as a Research Associate from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH).
  After Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper and that they therefore had no grounds to remove me from my position directly, they tried to create an intolerable working environment so that I would be forced to resign. As the OSC investigation concluded, “t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.” In addition, it was made clear to me that my position at the Smithsonian would not be renewed despite my excellent record of research and publication.
• My supervisor was replaced.
  I was transferred from the supervision of a friendly sponsor (supervisor) at the Museum to a hostile one.
• I lost my office space.
  I was twice forced to move specimens from my office space on short notice for no good reason, my name plate was removed from my office door, and eventually I was deprived of all official office space and forced to use a shared work area as my work location in the Museum.
• I faced onerous work requirements.
  I was subjected to an array of new reporting requirements not imposed on other Research Associates.
• My access to specimens was limited.
  My access to the specimens needed for my research at the Museum was restricted. (My access to the Museum was also restricted. I was forced to give up my master key.)
• I was ultimately demoted by the NMNH.
  Despite official assurances of fair treatment from the Smithsonian to congressional investigators, when I applied for renewal of my Research Associate position in 2006, my application was denied and I was offered the position of Research Collaborator—a demotion—without explanation.
• Pressure was put on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (part of the National Institutes of Health) to fire me.
• My political and religious beliefs were investigated.
  Smithsonian officials attempted to investigate my personal religious and political beliefs in gross violation of my privacy and my First Amendment rights.
• I was smeared with false allegations.
  [i]My professional reputation, private life, and ethics were repeatedly impugned and publicly smeared with false allegations by government employees working in tandem with a non-governmental political advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
• I was pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review.
  I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.

Summary
In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy. I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Uncle Rhynchus That also applies to biblical creationism, bigfoot investigation, and the like.

What's your point? Is interest in Bigfoot dead? Is creationism dead?

Where? Between whom?

You can usually get the details before or after such debates at discovery.org or at Uncommon Descent or one of it's links.

And this lab is conducting research into ID? If so, where can I see their results?

biologicinstitute.org

Any support for this claim?

From this poll:

When asked if life developed “through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection,” a standard definition of Darwinism, only 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement. But 52 percent agreed that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

According a poll in this article: "38 percent [believed] the theistic evolutionist account" in 2004

That's not exactly I.D., but there have been few polls that directly asked the ID question. It seems pretty safe to say there's a trend of belief in ID as people find out more and more about it.

So no, it seems that ID is alive and kicking and the majority of Americans currently believe in it - at least, that's what the poll indicates.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Unless I'm very much mistaken, the only explanation given by Intelligent Design is that Goddidit.

You're very much mistaken. The theory of ID doesn't assert that god did anything.

[Meleagar]

ID, in its most ubiquitous form (comparable to the Darwinian claim that "populations evolve over time"), as stated at sites like discovery.org and intelligentdesign.org is as proven as gravity.

Here is the ubiquitous version of I.D. theory:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Unless one is going to argue that the best explanation for the existence of a computer, or a battleship, is undirected natural forces or chance instead of intelligent design, then that ID occurs and exists is as proven as gravity.

[barts]

Quote by: Meleagar You're very much mistaken. The theory of ID doesn't assert that god did anything.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

[Source]


Call it "intelligent cause", but it's still a god. If it looks like a god, acts like a god, and walks like a god, it's a god. Or tell me what this "cause" is that is "intelligent". How does a cause have intelligence?

[Meleagar]

Quote by: barts [Source] Call it "intelligent cause", but it's still a god. If it looks like a god, acts like a god, and walks like a god, it's a god. Or tell me what this "cause" is that is "intelligent". How does a cause have intelligence?

Human beings employ intelligent design all the time. Are we gods?

[barts]

Quote by: Questatement ISummary In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy. I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena.

And now the rest of the story about Richard Sternberg.