Is ID getting anywhere? Three thoughts, and a suggestion, and other news

Denyse noted,

“Right now, a politician would hardly describe her proposed programs as “intelligently designed” when canvassing voters unless she knew they were sympathetic to design in nature. Score one for the ID guys, for capturing a term.”ockquote>

But score two for the ones who have severely denigrated the term.

“ID or not, oppose any effort to institute thought control where you live. Read up on where it has led in Canada. I dare to hope that we will win against the thought controllers, whether dogmatic Darwinians or (in Canada far more often) unstructured professional busybodies.”

One of the reasons, if not the prime reason, that ID appears to be lacking somewhat, is that the ‘thot controllers’ are still in control, and appear to me to be acting out of desperation to maintain that position. Point be known; it is their position that appears to be in decline. Who speaks loudest, PNAS or an upcoming science student? Let’s call it ‘latent scholarship’ or to be more succinct, ‘latent authority’.

One problem has been one of scholastic inertia, a kind of cultural inertia, that acts in a way that upcoming students are often constrained to prevailing biases. I flunked American History twice due to disagreements with the prof regarding interpretations and/or motivations behind colonial and governmental acts. The text was skewed in places in chauvinistic ways that I simply could not accept. Stubborn was I, but realizing that to move on I must conform to a degree, I did so.

I see a parallel regarding the presentation of evolutionary theory today. But I also see a widening acceptance of ‘free thought’, i.e. the allowance of coming to your own conclusions, in areas where there are legitimate alternatives. I also see the Internet as a source of knowledge beyond the classroom.

A common criticism of ID promotion is that it’s simply ‘bending ear’, and feeding a frenzied culture war, rather than furthering valid scientific pursuit. At this juncture, It is to a degree, but to win the minds of those who are the scholars, teachers, researchers and yes, controllers in latency, this must be accomplished. Have patience, as a brand new enlightenment period may be in the offing.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/201750.html

in the age of reality TV and wardrobe malfunction, the guardians should all be Darwinbots

Chuckle.

I think that people may be starting to tire of ID and that critics of evolution have put too many eggs in the ID basket. I think that we need to diversify more into non-ID criticisms of evolution (e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts). I emphasize non-ID criticisms of evolution on my blog.

The Kitzmiller opinion’s ridicule of ID (e.g., “breathtaking inanity”) has done tremendous damage to ID’s reputation — as a result, government officials trying to introduce criticisms of evolution into public school curricula have found it necessary to disclaim that they are trying to introduce ID.

An amicus brief from the Discovery Institute urged Judge Jones to declare the controversy to be non-justiciable — questions are non-justiciable when there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277-78 (2004). An amicus brief filed by 85 scientists said, “Courts are ill-suited to resolve debates over the validity of controversial scientific theories. In particular, the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be stigmatized by the courts as less scientific than competing theories . . . .” Megalomaniacal activist Judge Jones didn’t listen — he was determined to make a big name for himself by ruling that ID is unscientific.

Judge Jones revealed extreme prejudice by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. He should be disqualified from hearing any more establishment clause cases.

Rewriting Darwin:

New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/ch.....tance.html

I saw the new move “Hancock” the other day. The movie was alright, but what caught my attention was an explanation as to where our superhero came from. The was told that “we were made in pairs.” That is very interesting. This is a major summer box office movie. It did not say “we evolved along a separate path.” While it may be possible to be made by evolution, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that the movie makers are acknowledging an important shift in their audience. This tells me that ID has been making significant progress.

Peter, with all due respect, I don’t think a story about the origins of a fictional superhero in a movie is an indicator of anything.

Why is it that none of the progression you write about is in any way scientific? Isn’t that where the real progress should be made?

johnny, it’s certainly a contrast to the X-men movies, which made us endure pointless narratives about the power of evolution.

Pop culture indeed qualifies as an indicator, and movies are right up there with music in cultural influence, and can be a reflection of cultural attitudes. I’d say that even a minor reference to creation as opposed to some hogwash about natural selection is not nothing, and is a possible indicator of a shifting status quo, albeit a small one.

Just keep doing what you do Denyse.

Apollos,

Pop culture indeed qualifies as an indicator, and movies are right up there with music in cultural influence, and can be a reflection of cultural attitudes. I’d say that even a minor reference to creation as opposed to some hogwash about natural selection is not nothing, and is a possible indicator of a shifting status quo, albeit a small one.

I don’t deny that pop culture can be used as an indicator of cultural trends and attitudes. What I am finding hard to believe, however, is that the fictional origin of a superhero — Hancock in this case — is any sort of indication of the attitudes of popular culture. It may reflect the attitude of Will Smith, or of the writers, but to me it seems like quite a stretch from even beginning to represent the attitude of a culture as a whole.

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.

Foiled by the blockquote tag again.

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.
I’m certain there are, but I don’t discount even subtle pop culture trends when it comes to recognizing the validity of design scenarios — even fantasy ones.

Do you have any favorite examples? I know that opinion polls show a high amount of skepticism regarding undirected processes, and a surprising support for a special creation scenario. That’s not bad in and of itself, and confounding to the materialist establishment.

Heh I’ve been bitten by blockquote too. I checked and triple checked. The HTML validation is eating entire paragraphs.

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.When you consider how liberal Hollywood is, you have to stop and consider the signifigance. Producers routinely make ‘R’ rated movies rather than ‘G’ movies to satisfy their own interests. In doing this they intentionally make less profit for their companies. So to have a major movie that overcomes the personal bias of Hollywood producers is very signifigant.

When you consider the liberal bias in Hollywood producers, this is significant.

You may want to confirm this by hard evidence.