Friday, January 23, 2015

Is Intelligent Design Creationism winning the debate in the scientific community?

Back in 1998 the Intellignet Design Creationists published the Wedge Strategy. They set themselves several goals including some twenty year goals that they hoped to achieve by 2018 (three years from now). They are ...
  • to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science
  • to see design theory applications in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts
  • to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political, life
They aren't even close to achieving the first two goals but I think it's fair to say that they are well on their way to achieving the third goal in the United States. I don't think they've had much success in other countries. Perhaps readers in Europe, India, Africa, and China could let me know if design theory has permeated their culture and their politics?

Casey Luskin has recently posted a progress report in Evolution News & Views (sic) [In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?]. He's very optimistic. He lists thirteen (13) recent victories for Intelligent Design Creationism and concludes ...
Don't expect a revolution overnight. We are in this for the long haul, recognizing that it can take time for the truth to slip past the checkpoints that the Darwin lobby sets up to keep the public uninformed. In the end, though, I'm optimistic because the fundamentals of ID -- the science underlying the inference to design in nature -- are sound. The truth will win out, though it may tarry in doing so. Or to put it another way, the tide of ID is already well on its way in. We need to focus on telling people about it.
They'd better hurry. There's only three years left.


  1. I don't think they've achieved goal #3 either. Polls generally show that the public's opinion of creationism hasn't budged significantly since they started asking questions. The DI has had zero effect: scientific literacy started out in an appalling state and remains in that state.

    1. I'll take your word for it since you live in the USA. However, from the outside it sure looks like there are a lot of politicians who are opposed to evolution and keep mentioning intelligent design. It may not be a majority but "permeate" seems like an appropriate verb.

    2. Sure, there are lots of politicians who mention intelligent design. The question is whether this has increased since the DI has been operating. Well, sort of. They never used to use exactly that term, but they have always supported God over evolution. So you might credit the DI with popularizing a phrase.

    3. Now, there's another phenomenon that may be giving you the impression you have: the takeover of the Republican Party by the religious right. But I don't see the DI or ID having anything to do with that.

  2. In Sweden ID is next to dead. There are a few proponents supported by minor religious groups. There have been politicians who claimed to believe in ID but when they are confronted publically at a larger scale they retract very quickly, and claim they are misqouted. Running for a seat in the parliament and being an ID supporter is a safe way to loose votes. Luckily.

    1. Are demographers welcomed on this blog? If so here is my two cents worth. Otherwise, just ignore/delete this post.

      In fact it is Sweden that is next to dead. With a typical European below replacement birth rate, and an increasing Muslim population, Sweden will be all but gone soon.You better pray to God that he changes His mind and lets you live, because otherwise Sweden won't be around in another 100 years. It's a real pity too, because no country in the world makes women as beautiful as Sweden does. It will be a shame to loose them.

    2. Mats, could you give an example of "There have been politicians who claimed to believe in ID but when they are confronted publically at a larger scale they retract very quickly, and claim they are misqouted."
      I also live in Sweden but missed that in the news. I would not claim that ID has wide support in Sweden but I think it is interesting how the design hypotheses is spreading in public discussion.

    3. "but I think it is interesting how the design hypotheses is spreading in public discussion."

      It isn't, this is your imagination at work.

  3. My impression is that intelligent design is virtually unknown in France. It's never mentioned (except perhaps by me) in my presence. It's got an awfully long way to go before it can be said to have permeated the culture and politics. France is an interesting case because like the USA we have a separation between religion and the state, but unlike the USA we take it seriously.

  4. I've never heard it mentioned in the UK. I've met run-of-the-mill Creationists, and the odd evolution skeptic, but ID is nowhere to be seen. Not that I'm an Ancient Mariner about people's evolutionary views.

    1. Don't forget Glasgow's very own Discotute wannabees, the Centre for Intelligent Design.

    2. Ah. OK, My first sentence is no longer true. Come to think of it, there's Jonathan McLatchie too (probably affiliated. I could find out if I could be bothered to move my fingerssssszzzz ... )

  5. I'd say they are misdirected in seeing overcoming evolution as their main goal. In terms of their three objectives, creationism still seems to be having more success than ID. And, the ID proponents keep telling us, creationism is a completely different thing from intelligent design. So maybe, rather than spending all their time trying to tear down evolutionary theory, they should first devote their efforts to destroying creationism. Having vanquished that foe, then could then turn their attention to evolution.

    Isn't it odd that they never seem to say a word against creationism, even though their rhetoric is that it is a rival theory?

    1. They don't say creationism is a "rival theory" to ID. Since 2004, the party line has been that creationism is a "personal religious belief" that is held by *some* (actually all) ID proponents. But even though some (actually all) ID proponents hold to creationism, it's just their "personal religious belief" which they don't try to pass off as science. ID is real science, unlike Darwinism which is a religion. Also, cabbage goldfish broom handle orgasm sea otter stripey mustard.

  6. Two maps and one interesting correlation:

    explained here:

    and here:

  7. Very timely, yet another elliptically anti-evolution bill was just introduced in the Missouri legislature:

    Similar legislation has died in committee there before, we will see where this one goes but history suggests probably no where fast.

    Note there is no explicit mention of "Intelligent Design" or even just "design" and instead cryptic anti-evolution language so convoluted "If you found it lying in a field, you would certainly think that it had been designed by a being who had been designed by a being with a sense of humor." (That's a joke, by the way).

    1. Unfortunately, it's not as much fun as last year's bill which gave parents the ability to remove their children from classes where "evolution by natural selection" is taught. (This would have piqued students' interest in the subject immensely.) This year's bill is a "critical thinking" piece. Remarkably, it has only a single sponsor, in contrast to the crowd-sourcing of previous years. In the Missouri General Assembly that counts as progress.

  8. I suppose if you ignore Islam and orthodox Judaism, you could say it is growing only in the United States.

    But theistic evolution -- along the lines of Chardin's Phenomenon of Man -- is fairly common among non-fundamentalists. It's pretty hard to be a theist of any stripe without being a dualist, and the whole point of most religion is that souls are non-physical and not evolved.

    1. I actually don't think it's growing among the hoi polloi in the United States. Polls show that Flintsones creationism is slowly, slooowly losing ground among the public, but so slowly that there's no reason for us to celebrate.

      The problem is that so many GOP politicians, including nearly all Tea Partiers, have linked their wagons to creationism, because they've realized that you can connect creationism to any other issue-- "Scientists suppress criticism of evolution, just like they suppress criticism of global warming"-- and creationism becomes a component of a political rhetoric that can be turned to serve any material purpose.

  9. Perhaps readers in Europe, India, Africa, and China could let me know if design theory has permeated their culture and their politics?

    They haven't had almost any influence in those regions, however, they are winning in many places despite people never having heard of them, if that makes sense. I have commented many times here on the revival of religion in many countries in Eastern Europe after 1989, and while it is not as if the church has regained its dominant position from before 1945/1917, the religious views on the questions of origins are on prominent display everywhere in the media, while it is very hard (almost impossible) to find someone expressing an openly atheistic position.

    No need to comment on the situation in Africa and the Middle East where religion is completely dominant (though often it not exactly the religion the people in the DI have in mind) and being an atheist is a crime in a number of them, even punishable by death. Also keep in mind that those are the most rapidly growing demographically countries on the planet (which is not at all unrelated to the dominance of religion over their socieiteS).

    There are small gains in the right direction in what we usually refer to as "Western" countries. And because the people fighting for these things are usually located there too, it is very easy for them to see the world as becoming more rational and skeptical. But as a whole it is going in the reverse direction, for reason having almost nothing to do with the activities of the DI and the likes. When people feel oppressed and hopeless they cling to their religion even tighter, as a last pillar of their identity, and given that atheism is associated with western culture, imperial oppression, or something else that has been demonized (doesn't matter that this is not factually true, the perception is what matters), it is not going to be very popular among such people. It's a similar phenomenon playing out not only in Muslim countries but also in those countries in Eastern Europe where Orthodox Christianity is resurgent, where it is seen by the population as a pillar in the resistance to western cultural (and more recently political too) assimilation, and used by the ruling class as a useful tool for controlling the masses.

    So in summary:

    1) Let's have a good laugh at the ID and creationists in the US for they fully deserve it
    2) In the same time, we should be very very worried about the global trends

    1. Perhaps readers in Europe, India, Africa, and China could let me know if design theory has permeated their culture and their politics?

      ID plays a very insignificant role in Poland. The overwhelming majority of Poles describe themselves as Roman Catholics, but most of those accept evolution as the explanation of the history of life on Earth, somehow reconciling it with the doctrine of the Church ("God let natural evolution create all that variety for him", or something to that effect) and the belief that God, by personal intervention, made Homo sapiens something superior to other primates.

      If my experience is anything to go by, ID is a marginal movement. Any conservative Catholic who doesn't accept evolution is likely to be an old-style creationist. Only evolutionary biology (or rudiments thereof) is taught in schools.

      In 2006 a deputy minister of national education (from a nationalist conservative party that formed part of the Cabinet at the time) announced his plans to introduce creationism as "an alternative to evolution" in biology classes. More than 1000 Polish scientists signed an open protest, demanding his dismissal. The project was immediately abandoned despite the fact that the minister of education himself was Roman Giertych, son of Professor Maciej Giertych (one of the creepy stars of "Expelled", and Poland's best-known creationist with actual academic credentials). Maciej Giertych, by the way, is also an out-of-the-closet YEC, not an IDiot.

      I think ID enjoyed more popularity a few years ago; they had a lively Internet website with a discussion forum -- now completely defunct.

    2. Oops, I searched a little and found a new website devited to Intelligent Design. It's sponsored by something called the Biblical Creation Society, with its headquarters in the fair city of Poznań -- my home town, of all places. The BCS, as Wikipedia tells me, has been established by a coalition of several Protestant churches active here (Baptists, Pentecostals, Reformed Evangelicals). So much for ID having no religious axe to grind.


    3. Piotr: "ID plays a very insignificant role in Poland."

      This is the opposite of the claim made by the creepy anti-Semite Maciej Giertych, who shows up in the movie Expelled to tell us that in the USA, dark land of thought suppression, no criticism of Darwinism is allowed, but in Poland, the land of the free, scientists are free to criticize Darwin.

      I imagine that when he talks to Polish audiences, he says the reverse: USA land of the free, Poland dark land of suppression...

      This is a variant of an idea that has been around for ~100 years: "In our country no dissent of Darwinism is allowed, but in country X scientists are free to doubt Darwin!" Prior to World War I, Germany was the land of the free where intellectuals had rejected and defeated Darwinism. After the outbreak of WWI, overnight, Germany became the dark land of Darwinism where all Germans were atheists that had been hypnotized by Darwin-Nietzsche, Germany's all-powerful crypto-Kaiser.

      Nowadays the IDiots float the "Chinese paleontologist" quote, which originated (without verification) from the totally reliable Jonathan Wells, (who later told us he heard it from Jun-Yuan Chen): USA dark land of repression, now communist China land of freedom where Darwin can be doubted...

    4. In 2006 a deputy minister of national education (from a nationalist conservative party that formed part of the Cabinet at the time) announced his plans to introduce creationism as "an alternative to evolution" in biology classes. More than 1000 Polish scientists signed an open protest, demanding his dismissal.

      If I recall correctly, even worse happened in Serbia ~10 years ago - they got a creationist minister of education who tried to ban the teaching of evolution and replace it with creationism. It was overturned quickly after the outcry.

      In Russia they have battled over that too and so far they have managed to keep creationism out of school despite the repeated attempts by the church to do it.

      But in Bulgaria I doubt there would be the same opposition.

      The church has tried to introduce teaching religion in school for a very long time, and ironically that has failed because of the church itself - it wanted something so extreme that it could not go through and refused to compromise, so in the end it got nothing.

      I have, however, looked at what their proposed curriculum includes, and it is basically teaching YEC to pre-school kids and kids in grades 1-8, long before they get to hear about evolution in biology classes. And I highly doubt there would an outcry from the scientific community were something like this to pass - the other day the head of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences declared that he is for the teaching of religion in schools....

    5. We do have religion in schools (not quite obligatory in theory, but many parents may feel a strong social pressure to make their kids attend those courses). Some (though by no means all) religion teachers use religion classes to spread creationist ideas. They are not supposed to do so. It would be unthinkable (and against the law) in a biology class. Most children I know find religion in school a waste of time and the poorly qualified teachers, often RC priests (the school slang for a cassock-wearing teacher is "Batman"), are held in low regard by their pupils and colleagues alike. The church has lost a lot of popular support in recent years by interfering in education so obtrusively.

    6. The same will happen in Bulgaria - it's not as if kids like going to school as it is right now.

      However, that does not mean this will drive them towards scientific atheism. Remember that we're talking about telling kids God created it all when they are 5. Most likely they will internalize that, while still hating their religious classes when they become older. Then the biology teacher in grades 10-11 will have no chance to educate it out of them, and that's if the biology teacher is ready to do it (they're generally not -- US teachers are much better prepared to fight that battle because of the culture war that has been going on for so long; that's not the case in most of the rest of the world)

    7. Creationism is "dying" or becoming irrelevant mainly because of YEC. The only OEC creationists in Europe and some parts of Easter Europe, except Russia where they are officially banned, are Jehovah's Witnesses. They however don't believe that creationism or ID should be thought in schools

    8. Jehovah Wtinesses might have been banned, but the Orthodox church is well and alive and increasing in strength in Russia. And they are a mix of YEC and OEC, one that is actually quite interesting to look at.

      I don't have direct observations on the situation in Russia but what happens there has a lot of influence on the priests and theologians in Bulgaria (who quote and invite the Russian ones all the time). For many of them the theory of evolution seems to just not exist - they just never mention it. You can hear some priest occasionally condemn it, but most of the time all you get is complete silence on the issue. The most prominent theologian in the country talks all the time about creation, Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. and the way he talks about it is as if the biblical story is literally true. But he has never mentioned evolution. Not once.

      So at some point I invoked Ockham's razor and the principle that where mere ignorance suffices as an explanation there is no need to propose a vast conspiracy and started to suspect that this silence is indeed due to ignorance. It might be hard at first to wrap one's mind around that - after all that stuff was thought in schools during communist times - but after some more reflection is not that hard to see how it could happen. First, it was taught but was taught through an ideological prism, so people developed suspicion towards it. Second, it might have been taught, but it was only once and superficially (even if aggressively), and at an age where the conflict might not have been apparent in the case of these people, and after that they were never exposed to the subject, because of the early specialization of college majors in the Eastern European university systems, where you enroll in a major from the very beginning and if it's in the humanities, you never take any science. Third, evolution and questions of origins are absent from the media even in a popular version (there are no equivalents to Sagan, Dawkins, Gould, etc.).

      As a result in a very weird and twisted way creationism wins by default without there being any battle. One should not underestimate the importance of the culture war for familiarizing both sides with the positions of the other; I will guess that quite a few people have ended up atheists as a consequence of the fact that their religious leaders have felt it was necessary to constantly condemn evolution, which lead some of their flock to read more about it and eventually move away from faith. Obviously not enough to significantly diminish the importance of the church, but it's better than nothing, and you don't get even that in the absence of a culture war.

      That's also why in terms of positions on the subject we're talking about a weird mess of YEC, OEC, and TE, because nobody has had to sit down, think about it and develop a coherent and consistent position. Which is actually not a good thing.


      "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists. Why not? First, many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the Bible teaches.* Also, creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.

      Furthermore, in some lands the term “creationist” is synonymous with Fundamentalist groups that actively engage in politics. These groups attempt to pressure politicians, judges, and educators into adopting laws and teachings that conform to the creationists’ religious code.

      Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral. They respect the right of governments to make and enforce laws. (Romans 13:1-7) However, they take seriously Jesus’ statement that they are “no part of the world.” (John 17:14-16) In their public ministry, they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards. But they do not violate their Christian neutrality by supporting the efforts of Fundamentalist groups that try to establish civil laws that would force others to adopt Bible standards.—John 18:36."


    10. *
      Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?

      "MANY people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation. But the real contradiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.

      The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with “Christian” Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.

      When Was “the Beginning”?

      The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

      Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

      How Long Were the Creative Days?

      What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

      No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

      How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved."

      Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?

    11. Hey Newbie,

      On the subject of weird, twisted cults, perhaps you can answer this question.

      Why, whenever JWs knock on my door*, they invariably have an obviously mentally handicapped child in tow ?

      Seriously, this has happened several time in the last few years.

      I've asked them but they seem unwilling or incapable of providing a answer.

      Do you think this is fair to the child ?

      And why, if they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards, do they always want money for that copy of the Watchtower that they always try to push into my hands ?

      * For some reason they no longer call on me.

    12. Steve,

      "On the subject of weird, twisted cults, perhaps you can answer this question"

      Do you find Jehovah's Witnesses weird or twisted cult because there are mentally handicapped children or people among them?

      "Why, whenever JWs knock on my door*, they invariably have an obviously mentally handicapped child in tow ? Seriously, this has happened several time in the last few years."

      It is possible that the same person--the mother or the father of the child--visited you over more than once and brought the child along. Or perhaps there are more handicapped children in the congregation who works the territory you live and their parents bring them along.

      "I've asked them but they seem unwilling or incapable of providing a answer. Do you think this is fair to the child ?”

      Perhaps they didn’t think it was appropriate to talk about child’s problem in front of him/her. Or perhaps they didn’t think it made sense it explain it to you why they do that. Maybe the mother/father can’t leave it at home alone. Or maybe going from door to door with the parents makes the child feel a valuable and important member of the congregation and the society? Maybe it helps the child to overcome anxieties or shyness? If the parents did the opposite, would they help the child if it felt left out because of the retardation? Would it be fair?

      ”And why, if they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards, do they always want money for that copy of the Watchtower that they always try to push into my hands ?”

      Jehovah’s Witnesses ask for donations toward their worldwide evangelizing work. They accept any donation, even very small. It is not the amount of donation that it is important to them, but the persons appreciation for the work and publications that are free. If one doesn’t wish to donate, he/she can still receive publications free.

      ”For some reason they no longer call on me.”

      Perhaps they can’t find you home. Or perhaps they have determined you are not interested in learning about the benefits of living by God’s standards. I’m pretty sure they will not leave you unattended for a long time. It is usually 1 year before they come back to see if your interests have changed or if another person has moved in. We are pretty well organized.

    13. Hey Newbie,

      If they didn’t think it was appropriate to talk about child’s problem why do they drag the poor tot around with them ?

      If they can't afford to provide the child with proper care why are they out trying to save the souls of others when they can't even properly deal with their own problems ?

      How does dragging the child around from door to door make[s] the child feel a valuable and important member of the congregation and the society ?

      Do you think that this is a form of child abuse ?

      Do you think that the parents time would be better spent not indoctrinating their child in a system of tribal ethics and morality and perhaps teaching it how to become a productive member of a secular democracy ?

      Just asking, as you seem to have an answer for most everything.

      What I find most weird and twisted about the JW cult is the willingness of JW parents to sacrifice the lives of their children in a pathetic attempt to vindicate their insane delusions by refusing to allow them live saving blood transfusions. This is truly disgusting behaviour and I say shame on you for providing moral and financial support to these moral cretins.

    14. Steve,

      My son is autistic. He was fine up until about 18 months when he received a dose of many vaccines. While I have no proof, and the science behind it has been changed recently, as a parent I have seen my son turning from a cheerful, happy little boy to a zombie right in front of my eyes.
      I will emphasize this again for the sake of the majority who didn't have this experience and probably never will--there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the notion that vaccines cause autism. .
      However, going to meetings with parents with kids with autism spectrum disorder, the agreement is almost unanimous--something has changed in their children’s behavior after receiving the vaccination, which in North America is mostly around 18 months of age.

      At 3.5 years of age my son has become totally mute.
      I have gone everywhere and read all the publications available.

      At 3.5 years of age my son was put on gluten free and casein free diet. We also removed genetically modified corn and other GMOs products as much as possible. We found an MD who also believed in prevention, natural treatments as well as homeopathy.

      My son was put on very strong antibiotics and vitamin 12 injections. Within about 6 weeks from the beginning of the full treatmentwe have noticed a gradual change in his behavior and some sounds came out of his mouth.
      Today, my son is almost 12 years old. His speech is almost at the level of his peers though he is still in a special class. He is catching up but not in every area of schooling.
      Thanks to going from door to door, he overcame some his social issues associated with autism. While not ideal, his interactions with peers are getting better. He recently joined a science course starting with robotics all the way through the theory of relativity. The instructor of the course actually called me and said that my son disagreed with some aspects of the theory of relativity.

      We love our children and we would never allow them to die. That is why we have become world’s experts in bloodless medicine. We have special committees of experts who educate doctors on bloodless and alternative medical treatments. That is why the network of bloodless treatments has expanded beyond Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    15. You my dear Newbie are a lying sack of shit.

      A large number of Jehovah's Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower's regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah's Witnesses take the Society's prohibition, Paul Blizard, a former elder, tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, "I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood."[6] Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion.[7]*

      You routinely slaughter your children for the sake of your disgusting cult.



    1. My god! The IDiots have escaped to South America! Who gave them identity papers? Did they get plasic surgery? Burn off their fingerprints with acid? Has the Church set up another ratline, or just use the old one?

    2. The mousetrap is also the very same... The vast majority of the "exponents" are chemists who don't research about Evolutionary Biology. They only reproduce Discovery Institute's stuff... Of course, there is not even a single paper about ID.

  11. Goal #2 is "to see design theory applications in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts"

    Well, to prove ID has influence in the fine arts, they usually cite quotes from long-dead non-scientists like C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton.

    But I think ID has influenced the "fine arts":

    "There’s enough miracles here to blow your brains.
    …This $%^&’ll blow your mother$%^&in’ minds. Heh.
    I’ve seen miracles all around me.
    Stop and look around, it’s all astoundin’.
    Water, fire, air, and dirt.
    &$%#in’ magnets. How do they work?
    And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist.
    Y’all motherf&$%#ers lyin’, and getting’ me pissed.
    " [Insane Clown Posse,, NSFW]

    No evo-mat Darwinist-materialist can refute the rock-solid arguments for intelligent design and the truth of Christianity presented by the composers of I Stuck Her with My Wang.

    Although, of course, the Hollywood liberal progressives at Saturday Night Live tried with a cruel parody intended to shut down debate, stifle dissent, squelch all disagreement, and censor free everything:

    Is the world round? Is it flat?
    How come no one can tell me that?
    ...What is Alaska? Who is Brazil?
    Isn’t a volcano just an angry hill?
    How did God ever think up dirt?
    Erasable pens make my head hurt.
    Metal, girls, iron, fire.
    How’d they get my voice in a telephone wire?
    Why are pants different than shirts?
    &$^%in’ blankets. How do they work?
    How do suitcases always know where to meet you? Huh?

    Are children small, or just far away?
    Why do some mountains look like presidents?
    What the &$%^ is a clock!?
    …So open your mouth and shut off your brain.
    The mysteries of life can’t be explained.
    So $%^# you, books! We don’t need yo’ tricks.
    And all you scientists can suck our #$%^s.

    [Bobby Phillipe and Bobby Moynihan, SNL April 17th. 2010. NSFW]

  12. Give it up and admit defeat you evo-mat Darwinists, evolution is dead already. Didn't you hear Michael Behe say that this a "post-Darwinist society"? And Casey Luskin agreed? Do you morons know what "post" even means?

    Here was William Dembski spelling it out in 1998: “I predict that in the next five years [by 2003] intelligent design will be sufficiently developed to deserve funding from the National Science Foundation.” [William Dembski, Mere Creation, 1998, p. 29]

    That means by 2003, a full TWELVE (12) years since the ID proponents have been getting NSF funding! They don't need to take money from Christian fascist billionaire Howard Ahmanson anymore, they've got taxpayer funding! Eat that, atheists!

    William Dembski, 2002: For such extremely isolated islands of functionality, there is no way for [Richard] Wein’s method of co-evolving functions to work. Prediction: Within the next two years [by 2004] work on certain enzymes will demonstrate overwhelmingly that they are extremely isolated functionally, making it effectively impossible for Darwinian and other gradualistic pathways to evolve into or out of them. This will provide convincing evidence for specified complexity as a principled way to detect design and not merely as a cloak for ignorance.” [William Dembski, Obsessively Criticized but Scarcely Refuted: A Response to Richard Wein. Design Inference, 2002]

    Ha ha! Protein evolution was disproven ELEVEN (11) YEARS ago! Eat it, Darwinists!

    And what about their legal victories, their triumphs in the courtroom?

    William Dembski, 2002: I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles. [Darwin's Predictable Defenders. By William A. Dembski, IDEA. July 2, 2002, Or see here.]

    Ha ha! Intelligent Design's been taught in public schools since Dover in 2005! Take that, predictable defenders of Darwin!

    Now prepare to read it and weep, Darwinist atheists!

    William Dembski, 2004: In the next five years [by 2009], molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level -- will be dead.

    GOTCHA, suckas! "Molecular Darwinism" has been dead for SIX (6) WHOLE YEARS and you "scientists" didn't know!

    When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years [by 2014]. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this.” [William Dembski, interviewed in "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design." Touchstone, 17(6), July/August 2004, pp. 60-65.]

    Lights out, evo-mat Darwinists! Darwinism had "a Taliban-style collapse" A YEAR AGO and you dogmatic materialists were too busy doing experiments and making discoveries to notice!

    Whoever's the last evo-mat Darwinist to leave the laboratory, remember to TURN OUT THE LIGHTS!

  13. I never knew there was such a thorough goals of id. Its great except it shouldn't matter in theology or politics etc.
    In the anglo-American civilization id is the talk of the educated, that means more then the mean, people.
    What educated person has not heard of the ID revolution or invasion.? Can't be that hip if not!
    I don't see ID/YEC going away and so the curve is that it will prevail since someone must in a contention that both sides say is about evidence.
    yuEC always had great support and finally the prophecy came true of non-YEC thinkers in science also concluding evolutionary biology is false and the fingerprints of a thinking creator are in nature and even obvious.
    I don't think 15 years will see evolution around as is.
    if iD was wrong it should of been smashed. Its flying high and seen as a threat.
    Its reaching audiences that is the proble, How to do that? The big media is hostile.
    ID should offer some series to a big network for equal time.
    PBS attacks ID as if they are the boss of truth but should give equal time.
    The others too.
    ID is one of the most famous and important corrections in science in a long time.
    They are confident and see themselves as the innovators of a higher intellectual curve in these subjects and part of a natural mankind progress.
    sure they do. they are right.
    Yet YEC was here first and doing fine.
    Lets share the carcass.

    1. Has anyone ever considered that Robert Byers is a Poe?
      Look at that little sentence "The others too." That has to be intended sarcasm.

    2. Mr Byers.

      I hope for your sake that God is not an English teacher....

    3. Ted:

      Or an editor. God just might be tempted to blue-pencil Byers' name from the book of life for sins committed against prose.

  14. (The reply button doesn't work on this computer: this is a reply to Diogenes)

    Creationism has been sqtrong in Brazil for a long time:

    I can't find the link right now, but I'm pretty sure that Rio de Janeiro had a creationist member of its state government some time around 2005. I can probably find the details on my office computer if you're interested, but not before Monday.

  15. The reply button doesn't work for me, either.

    Ted: People who are good at grammar go to Hell. Saved people go to Heaven.

    1. This utterly irrelevant consideration, I cannot possibly imagine,what your thinking off, at

    2. Ted:

      Ted buddy, you cannot give constructive criticism to creationists. On any subject, but especially their grammar-- we tried, it has no effect. They're going to Heaven and you're not. That's the only thing that matters to them. Therefore, they are incapable of shame.

  16. some data:

    at least USA ranks ahead of Turkey:

    It is not clear to me that Canada does better:

    59% of Canadians believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms, but 42% agree that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth

    I wonder what the results would be if we excluded Alberta?

    1. I wonder what fraction of that 42% comes from general scientific ignorance rather than religious dictates

    2. Or perhaps they are educated well enough to classify birds as dinosaurs. ;)

    3. SRM & Piotr - Interesting points - check out

      I remember this number popping up like a whack-a-mole over the years
      for example:

      This is my personal favorite

    4. ah yes Copernicus... a great but forgotten German hero of science!


    5. Re Heliocentric vs. Geocentric models

      Every once in a while, in the backwater I am obliged to inhabit, I on occasion, encounter a Creationist who challenges me with something along the lines of “Prove to me that Evolution is correct – I dare you!”

      Depending on on many beers I just consumed I generally respond with something along the lines of: “Prove to me the Earth goes around the sun and not vice versa, and then I will oblige.”

      Their dumfounded answer typically goes along the lines of: “Well – the Earth going around the sun is established fact – not like evolution.”

      My answer: “Not at all! It all boils down to what one grants as acceptable criteria for a scientific model. The two propositions are equivalent. No one has lived long enough to make observations over deep time and nobody has left our solar system to observe what is happening from outside. Deduction is required in both cases.

      For example, one can construct a model that the earth is indeed the centre of our solar system:

      Of course, that model would not be considered the most "parsimonious" model! So it would appear that parsimony ALSO seems to be an important criterion in choosing one scientific model over another, not just their utility as intellectual devices to generate predictions and correct answers to precisely defined questions. (My intro to phylogenetics actually...)

      So let's not forget that the heliocentric model constituted an immense challenge to Christian Orthodoxy and the inerrancy of the Bible (remember the so-called Galileo affair). Biblical reactionaries came to terms with heliocentricism just as they will eventually come to terms with evolution.

      That said – the moon really does NOT orbit the earth depending on one’s frame of reference. The moon and the Earth together constitute a binary-planet system that together orbit the sun. OK, let's leave Hill Spheres out of this, for the time being, there still is no retrograde motion. Therefore, my point still remains - everything depends on one's frame of reference! (As Galileo, ironically, was the first to understand!)

      Of course, if one were to evoke Einstein’s theory of relativity and change one’s frame of reference to the entire galaxy; the paths of the moon, the earth and the sun would resemble interlocking corkscrew spirals along some non-Euclidian curve in time-space.

      to recap -
      Q: Does the Earth revolve around the Sun or vice versa?
      A: Yes!

      But we digress.