The Intelligent Design Movement, centred around the Discovery Institute is often attacked for being all about PR. They are accused of lying, misrepresenting, and not producing positive arguments (only negative arguments against evolution).
Here I go through some of the things I felt were highlights (or low lights) of the ID movement this year.
January
Following Behe's testimony at Dover, where he accepts common ancestry, the ID movement begins to follow suit.
DaveScot writes:
The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor.
Not everyone in the movement
agrees (at least not at the time of Dover). Meyer does change his mind, from expressing doubt at Dover to
saying:
Meyer writes:
The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected
February:The history of the Wedge Document came to light. How it was leaked and whodunnit, interesting stuff.
Dan Ely, who testified in Kansas, speaks up against an alleged mischaracterisation of his position. He objects to Board Member Martha K. Wise stating that he was “struggling with the age of the earth” and “He [Ely] thinks the earth is only Five-thousand years old. That’s not just ID. That’s young earth creationism.”
In
Ely's testimony (after no inconsiderable evasion) he said:
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: I think -
Q. (By Mr. Irigonegaray) The question was- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old?
A. It could be.
Ohio Board of Education stops ID's latest attempt to get their stuff in the classrom (Critical Anaylsis of evolultion):
Constance Holden in Science 24 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5764, p. 1083 DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5764.1083 writes:
Scientists are hailing the demise of an attempt in Ohio to sneak intelligent design (ID) into the public school science curriculum under the guise of a “critical analysis” of evolution. Last week, the Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 to strike the words from its curriculum guidelines along with a creationist-inspired study guide.
March
Behe releases his 10th anniversary edition of
Darwin's Black Box. In his afterword he states "[o]ther than updating the list of my children in the Acknowledgements ... there is very little of the original text I would change if I wrote it today.". The DI still refers to it as an updated version.
April
The ORFan debacle begins courtesy of
Dr Paul Nelson. He claims that they are a problem for evolution - but some his claims aren't exactly...accurate. A full treatment can be found
here.
May
June
Allan MacNeill, begins teaching/his seminar on
Intelligent Design at Cornell.
ResearchID.org is set up.
July
August
Dembski posts an
email he received to uncommondescent. The email purports to be from a student whose ID work is being suppressed by Darwinist teachers. If true, it supports Dembski that IDists are being suppressed. If false, it supports Dembski (after all - it demonstrates that Darwinists are trying to make him look foolish). Interestingly, Dembski gives a reason (in the comments) for why he hasn't done any research.
Dembski writes:
The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.
September
The rather surreal statement was made:
Wiker and Witt, 2006, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature writes:
Darwin’s assumption that the terms species and variety are merely given for convenience’s sake is part of a larger materialist and reductionist program that undercuts the natural foundation of counting and distorts the natural origin of mathematics.
October
The ID movement has a
press release that explains why they haven't made any of their scientific progress public:
Bruce Chapman writes:
Friends of ID know the cases of a number of ID-friendly scientists who have lost their lab privileges or otherwise been discriminated against at universities here and in the UK. We are not trumpeting very many cases because the situations of several such scientists remain difficult. It is an appalling commentary on the state of academic freedom that ID-friendly scientists should have to work in an atmosphere of fear, but it’s true. We just want friends of ID who wonder why we don’t publicize work in progress more than we do to take a moment and reflect about that!
And shortly afterwards they announce that in the past ten years the DI has spent
$4 million on 'research'.
November
Nature publishes a
letter, which is to be pro-ID, or more specifically anti-evolution.
We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated
December
There is a
pile-on in nature in response to the above letter. Its quite amusing.
The
Sternberg issue rears its head. Lots of misinformation starts being thrown about. IDists claim Sternberg was treated negatively because he was an IDist. Everyone else claims Sternberg used his position as editor to publish a (allegedly pro ID) paper without adequate or appropriate peer review, which is unethical professional practice.
Dembski does his most talked about piece of work this year. A
flash animation of Judge Jones, complete with fart noises. When all else fails, fart noises are sure to win the debate.
Judge Jones
takes a lot of flack because one year ago he didn't accept the findings of fact from the pro-ID side. Apparantly accepting the other sides findings of fact is plagiarism, but if it had been the other way around it would no doubt have been a victory.
Not so much a debate thread, as a review thread, with debate possibility. However, I am interested in other people's highlights from the ID movement this year. I missed a few things out for brevity, and some might be worth having on this thread.
Intelligent Design would seem the logical choice, neh?
™ Version 4.2